Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For County of Hertford (St. Albans Division), in the room of Colonel Sir Edward llildred CarlilL-, baronet (Manor of Northstead)—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]

Oral Answers to Questions — GAUGES (IMPORTATION).

Mr. G. THORNE: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any proclamation has been issued prohibiting the import of gauges; if not, by what authority the Board of Trade are, in fact, prohibiting the import of gauges; whether he can state what is the meaning of gauges in such prohibition or notice; and if he will say whether it means gauges such as are commonly used in connection with machinery or micrometers for the accurate measurement of dimensions?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir A. Geddes): The importation of micrometers except under licence was prohibited by the Proclamation of 16th November, 1917, and other gauges were covered by the Proclamation of 31st November, 1916, which applied to hardware generally. The term "gauges" in the Schedule published in the Press on 23rd August last covers micrometer gauges, vernier gauges, test indicators, limit gauges, including plug and ring gauges and screw gauges, surface plates and other measuring devices of precision such as are used by engineers in machine shops and viewing shops, but is not intended to comprise boiled pressure gauges used commonly in ordinary industrial practice.

Mr. G. THORNE: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he was aware that the name of two British manufactures were given to the trade as
a probable source of supply for micrometers; if so, whether he was aware that one of these manufacturers and the other stated that he was unable to say when they would be in a position to offer supplies; and whether he was prepared to take any steps in the matter?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am aware that on several occasions suggestions have been made as to possible sources of supply in this country, but I have not been able to identify the particular case to which the hon. Member refers. If he will supply the necessary details I will inquire into the matter. The rule is to grant licences where it is clear that manufactures in this country cannot meet requirements. If the particular micrometers cannot be obtained here, a licence to import reasonable quantities will not be refused.

Mr. G. THORNE: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in prohibiting the importation of gauges, the Board of Trade acted on the recommendation of the Committee on Commercial and Industrial Policy; and, if so, whether he would state the names of the members of that Committee who recommended the prohibition and the precise terms of their recommendation?

Sir A. GEDDES: As regard the first part of this question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to him on the 3rd November last. As regards the second part, the names of the members of the Committee on Commercial and Industrial Policy who signed the interim Report on certain essential industries appear on page 12 of that Report (Cd. 9032, 1918), and their observations on limit and screw gauges will be found on page 9 of that Report.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (UNITED STATES IMPORTS).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 2.
asked what was the increase in the value of goods imported into India by the United States of America in the three months ended 30th June, 1919, compared with the same period in 1918;abd what was the increase or decrease of goods imported there from the United Kingdom during the same period?

Sir A. GEDDES: As the answer to this question involves a statistical table, I will,
with the permission of the House, have a statement circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The following is the statement referred to:
The value of merchandise imported into British India from the United Kingdom mid the United States of America, respectively, during the periods specified according to the official India Trade Returns were as follows:

Country whence imported.
Imports of Merchandise.
Increase (+) or decrease (−) in 1919 as compared with 1918.


Three months ended 3oth June, 1918
Three months ended 30th June, 1919.







Rupees.
Rupees.
Rupees.


United Kingdom
…
…
200,050,000
179,780,0000
−20,270,000


United States of America.
…
35,412,000
63,405,000
+27,993,000

Sir F. HALL: Is there any truth in the report that the imports into India from the United States have been considerably increased, and has there been a corresponding reduction in the imports from this country into India?

Sir A. GEDDES: Yes. The movements are in the directions indicated, but my hon. and gallant Friend will see the precise figures.

Sir F. HALL: What steps do the Government intend to take to conserve the trade of British India for this country?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. arid gallant Member must give notice of that question. It is not on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROFITEERING ACT.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE TRIBUNALS.

Mr. A. SHORT: 3.
asked the President: of the Board of Trade if he will enumerate the articles or purchases actually dealt with under the Profiteering Act and whether he will indicate the articles which have been the subject of a reduction in price in: consequence of the operation of the Act?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am sending the hon. Member copies of the Schedules which have been issued attached to the Orders made by the Board of Trade which will give him the information he desires. With regard to the last part of the question, the factors which determine. price
are always numerous and complicated and not infrequently indirect in their action. I am, however, quite satisfied that the price of all the articles scheduled has been affected by the operation of the Act.

Mr. SHORT: 4.
asked how many cases have been dealt with by local profiteering tribunals and how many by the Central Committee?

Sir A. GEDDES: The reports which have been received from 1,020 local committees show that such committees have dealt with 908 complaints of profiteering. The Central Committee has dealt with thirty-two complaints.

Mr. DOYLE: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state how many towns and districts have refused or neglected to appoint profiteering tribunals; what are the reasons given for such refusal; and what action he intends to take to compel recalcitrant bodies to perform what is admittedly a public duty?

Sir A. GEDDES: Out of 2,042 local authorities to whom invitations were sent 214 have not appointed local committees under the Profiteering Act. As regards the remainder of the question I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for South Islington on the 27th October last.

Sir H. COWAN: Having regard to the complete failure of these local tribunals to serve any useful purpose, does the right hon. Gentleman think it worth while to take any further action?

Sir A. GEDDES: I could not possibly agree that they have failed to serve any useful purpose. They have been and are most useful.

Mr. DOYLE: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the constitution of such profiteering tribunals as have 'been appointed; if he will give the percentage of professional men, local manufacturers, local tradesmen, persons
of independent means, women, and labour representatives; and what instructions have been issued by his Department as to the proceedings of such tribunals in order to secure a full, free, and disinterested consideration of each case?

Sir A. GEDDES: Copies of the Regulations governing the constitution, powers and procedure of local committees were laid upon the Table of this House on 22nd October last. These Regulations provide that two members of each local committee shall be women, and that labour in the district shall be adequately represented. I do not consider that it would be justifiable to incur the expenditure which would be involved in obtaining figures showing percentages of the various classes represented on the 1,777 local committees already established by local authorities.

Mr. DOYLE: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many charges of profiteering had been brought before the various tribunals and the number of convictions; in how many cases had retailers been compelled to return money to customers, and what was the aggregate of the money so returned; how many manufacturers and wholesalers had been shown by retailers to be heavy profiteers; and how many such primary offenders had been summoned and how many had been imprisoned?

Sir A. GEDDES: Of the 1,777 local committees established by local authorities, only 646 have at present rendered a Report to the Board of Trade. These Reports show that 334 complaints have been heard (in 195 of which the retailer was held to be guilty of profiteering), and refunds to customers have been ordered in 169 cases. I am not in a position to state the aggregate amount refunded in these cases. In some 60 cases the local committees have suspected profiteering on the part of the wholesaler or manufacturers, and have referred the cases to the Board of Trade. These are now being dealt with. From Reports received, local committees have ordered prosecution of 41 cases. No case of imprisonment has as yet been reported.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When is it expected to have a decision in the first case the Board of Trade has investigated in regard to wholesalers or manufacturers?

Sir A. GEDDES: Some decisions are already on the point of being arrived at. The investigation in regard to manufacturers is necessarily long.

CENTRAL COMMITTER.

Mr. SEDDON: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, of the forty-six members of the Central Committee of the Profiteering Act who attended the meeting during the railway strike, only two were able to attend from the provinces out of a total of 143 members; whether he is aware of the feeling caused by the fact that these forty-six persons, almost wholly Metropolitan and official members, should have arrogated to themselves the functions which the President of the Board of Trade invited the whole 143 to assist him in carrying out; whether he is aware that the chairman of the meeting on 1st October publicly admitted he had gone behind the members' backs to privately discuss with Mr. Sidney Webb how the work of the Central Committee was to be cut and dried; that a promise was wired to one member stranded at Penzance that another meeting should be shortly be held to complete the meeting of 1st October, but that such promise has been openly ignored; whether he is aware that those members of his committee who have been ignored by the minority are about to commence a public Agitation against the methods he has adopted; that these protests were also repeated at the consumers' council of the Food Ministry; and whether he will at once call a meeting -of the Central Committee under the Profiteering Act to complete the work improperly attempted on 1st October?

Major HURST: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, owing to the railway strike, about two-thirds of the members of the Central Profiteering Committee were prevented from attending its meeting on 1st October; whether all the functions of the Committee were at such meeting delegated to various standing committees; whether he is aware of the resentment felt in the North of England at the consequent exclusion of its representatives from the standing committees; and what action he proposes to take?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am aware that owing to the railway strike a large number of the members of the Central Committee were unable to attend the meeting held on 30th September last. I would,
however, remind the, hon. Members that, as I have already explained in answer to questions on this subject, the functions of the Central Committee are merely to appoint its three standing committees and to act as a panel from which members may be chosen for the various sub-comrnittees to deal with certain specific subjects. Every member of the Central Committee, whether present at the first meeting or not, has boon appointed to one or more of the standing committees and these committees have all been actively at work.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

EXPOUTED GOODS (PRICKS).

Colonel Sir J. REMNANT: 6.
asked if it is the Government's intention to restrict the price of goods exported from this country?

Sir A. GEDDES: No, Sir.

JAPANESE TRADE COMPETITION.

Sir F. HALL: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his statement that Great Britain had nothing to fear from Japanese trade competition was based OH comparative equality of labour costs in the two countries; if he will state what is the average daily wage of a skilled worker in this country, including war wages, compared with the daily wage of 6s. now generally prevalent in Japan; what are the weekly hours of skilled workers in Japan compared with the forty-seven hours' week now in force here; and if he will state in, what way the Government proposes to ensure that British manufacturers shall be enabled to hold their own in the face of Japanese competition in home and foreign markets while labour costs in Japan remain upwards of 150 per cent, lower than those obtaining in Great Britain?

Sir A. GEDDES: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The daily rates of wages of skilled time-workers in this country range in the majority of cases from about 10s. to 15s. on the basis of an eight-hour day. It is understood that skilled workers in Japan work on an average from ten to twelve hours a day, and I may perhaps add that, according to information not yet officially confirmed, some of the highest-paid skilled Japanese workers are now in receipt of wages equal approximately to
9s. a day, though I understand this is by no means general. There are, however, other factors to be taken into account, and I see no reason at present to fear that British manufacturers will be unable to hold their own in. competition with the Japanese.

Sir F. HALL: In view of the right lion. Gentleman's statement in answer to the first part of this question, is the statement which he has made that he did not shiver at the competition between this country and Japan correct?

Sir A. GEDDES: It is quite right. I am not shivering at all.

Dr. MURRAY: How can the wages in one country be 150 per cent. lower than in, another, and is the percentage calculation based on the new rules of arithmetic announced by the Secretary for War or is it the usual Tariff Reform figure?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am not responsible for the arithmetic of my hon. and gallant Friend.

Sir F. HALL: In what the right hon. Gentleman is referring to as my arithmetic I am simply quoting the statement of the right hon. Gentleman himself.

Mr. ROSE: Can the right hon. Gentleman take some measures or seek for powers by which we can reduce British wages to the level of those of Japan, in order to give these unfortunate manufacturers a chance?

Mr. TERRELL: Is it not a fact that the imports from Japan are increasing enormously, and at the prices at which we make we are unable to compote, and is not this due entirely to the very low rate of wages for which the Japanese workman works?

Sir A. GEDDES: No. These things are not as simple as that. During the last five years this country practically was not producing at all certain lines of goods, and supplies were bought when demanded from the only place where they could be obtained. That led to an enormous in crease into this country of goods from Japan, but there is a very great difference between a wholly artificial increase of that sort and the permanent retention by these goods of this market and the other markets when they are once again subject to British competition. There is every indication already that the great markets which Japan has got hold of already are thirsting and hungering for British goods.

Mr. TERRELL: May I ask my right hon. Friend—

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that (his Debate had better be:now adjourned.

DYES (GERMAN).

Major M'KENZIE WOOD: 28.
asked the President of the Hoard of Trade whether he can state the value of the dyes which have been received by this country from Germany; and on what basis their price is fixed for sale to consumers?

Sir A. GEDDES: No dye stuffs have so far been received from Germany under the Eeparation Clauses of the Peace Treaty, though consignments are now on the way. The values to be credited to Germany are to be fixed by the Reparation Commission, aubject to certain conditions, but I understand that the Commission have not yet conic to a definite decision on the matter.

Major WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of the question as to price?

Sir A. GEDDES: It is governed by part of the answer I have given.

Major WOOD: To consumers?

Sir A. GEDDES: Surely the hon. Member understands that these dyes are really the property of the Reparation Commission and are to be sold in this country on their behalf. We cannot fix prices here until we know what the prices are.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (FINANCIAL REPARA- TION).

Sir F. HALL: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his statement on the 20th October to the effect that there was no prospect of this country receiving any financial reparation from Germany in 1919 or 1920, and possibly not in 1921, was based on information that is in the possession of the Cabinet; and, if so, whether, in view of the assurances given by the Prime Minister to the country on this subject in December, 1918, he will state what exactly is the position of this question?

Sir A. GEDDES: I cannot trace any statement made by me on 20th October of the categorical nature indicated in the question. I certainly do not anticipate that any financial reparation will be received this year, and I doubt if we shall
receive much, if anything, in 1920. Any questions with regard to the payment of reparation should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir F. HALL: Would my right hon. Friend like to have a copy of the speech which he made himself and which has apparently slipped his memory?

Sir A. GEDDES: It would be very interesting to see the report of the speech, which is very often different from the speech.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA (BRITISH CREDITORS).

Mr. MANVILLE: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, after the War commenced, when Austrian debtors offered to pay their debts to British creditors, the British Government refused to allow British creditors to receive such payments, notwithstanding the fact that any moneys so received could have been retained by the Government for the benefit of British creditors generally?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I believe that permission to accept conditional payment by an Austrian debtor to individual British creditors was refused because it was illegal. In any ease, payments so made could not have been made available for British creditors generally.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (FINANCIAL REPARATION).

Mr. MANVILLE: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposed that the surplus of assets over liabilities, after combining both German property and debts against English property and debts, would be applied to liquidating the deficit balances of similar combinations of property and debts of the other enemy countries and, if not, would he state what method the Government proposed to adopt to satisfy the claims of British creditors in the three enemy countries apart from Germany?

Sir A. GEDDES: Any surplus assets on German account will be available for payment of claims by British nationals in respect of enemy Government action affecting their property in the territories of Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey. But it cannot, be used for the payment of private debts due by enemies
other titan Germans. The payment of such debts will be secured as far as possible by the property of the nationals of the countries of the debtors.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: What is the reason for the delay in clearing up the debits and credits of British and German commercial transactions, in view of the fact that the right lion. Gentleman has already stated that a clearing house has been set up in Germany for the purpose?

Sir A. GEDDES: I think my hon. Friend must have misunderstood me about a clearing house being set up in Germany, what I said was, "Set up here." Obviously these transactions cannot start until the ratification of Peace is completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL DUTCH COMPANY.

Mr. G. TERRELL: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Regulation under the Defence, of the Realm Act commandeering the Royal Dutch Company shares could now be withdrawn and dealings permitted in the London market?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. I am giving directions that this shall be done without waiting for the date of the termination of the War to be declared, when the Regulation would automatically lapse.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL PRODUCTION.

SHORTAGE or SUPPLY, NORTH LONDON.

Mr. SITCH: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he was aware of the grave shortage of coal in North London, particularly in the districts of Tottenham and Edmonton; whether he was aware of the serious hardships owing to the irregular transport service; and whether he would take steps to instruct the Metropolitan divisional coal officer to give the coal supplies in the districts referred to his personal attention?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am aware of the serious shortage of coal in the parts of London to which the hon. Member refers, and regret that these conditions, which are due to the inability of the Great Eastern Railway Company to transport the coal, should have arisen. The Metropolitan divisional officers have had the matter under their notice for some time, and efforts are being made to relieve the situation.

COAL INDUSTRY COMMISSION (EVIDENCE).

Mr. HARTSHORN: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when the Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence of the Coal Industry Commission would be published?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Wardle): I have been asked to reply to this question. The Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence of the Coal Industry Commission will be included in the Third Volume of the Proceedings. It is expected that the volume, which is now being printed, will be ready for issue shortly.

PRICES (TEN SHILLINGS REDUCTION)

Mr. ADAMSON: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he was in a position to state if any reduction was to be made in the price of coal; and, if so, the amount?

Sir A. GEDDES: The Government have reviewed the whole question of the price of coal in the light of all the information available.
The salient facts are:
The actual obtained output from July to date is less than the rate of 217,000,000 tons per annum, though the output in recent weeks has shown a marked improvement.
The prices ruling for export coal are, however, unprecedentedly high, and the fall which was regarded as inevitable is certainly postponed by events in the United States of America.
The prices for coastwise and foreigngoing bunkers are so high that, in conjunction with other charges, there is danger of the average level of freights rising unless some corrective is applied.
It is from these sources, export and bunkers, that profits are now being made. Coal used for inland purposes is being sold at a loss—that is, the average price is below the average cost of production. This is a very unsatisfactory and very dangerous position for the coal industry. Industrial coal, at any rate, must as much as possible be sold on an economic basis.
In the light of these facts it is desirable at an early date to modify profoundly the present system of coal control, which is, in my opinion, now that more coal is becoming available, unnecessarily hampering.
We propose, therefore, gradually to transform the coal control machinery until it consists of three parts only:

1. A limitation on the amount of coal allowed to be exported;
2. A limitation on the owners' profits;
3. A special limitation on the price of coal supplied for domestic purposes.

Steps to secure these modifications will be taken as rapidly as circumstances permit.
As a direct aid to the cost of living in these exceptional and abnormal times we propose to fix the price of domestic and household coal at a level 10s. per ton below the present price, thus letting the general householder share in some measure in a privilege which the workers in the industry have for long enjoyed and receive some benefit from the present high value of this national asset. We also propose to reduce the price for coastwise bunkers to the industrial level. This will also be effective from Monday next. We are further exploring the position with regard to foreign-going bunkers, but I am not in a position at present to make any announcement on this point
I desire to warn most seriously all householders not to postpone the purchase of necessary coal because of the reduction of price which will become effective next week. If they do and if they expect on next Monday to get unlimited supplies of coal at the now price they will be disappointed. This change can only be made without confusion if we secure the cooperation of all concerned.
The necessary orders and instructions to give effect to these decisions with regard to price will be issued in the course of this week.

Mr. TERRELL: Will this involve the Exchequer in any financial loss?

Sir A. GEDDES: No. We estimate that, approximately, these reductions, with certain other changes contemplated in the near future, will leave the account about square.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will coastwise traffic include deep-sea fishing vessels?

Sir A. GEDDES: All non-foreign-going.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to lay before the House some figures relating to the industry upon which these results are based?

Sir A. GEDDES: That has already been announced, and an undertaking given to that effect. We are having them prepared.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea as to when they will be ready?

Sir A. GEDDES: It is very difficult to say, as it is a long job.

Mr. HOUSTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise the vital necessity of increasing the quantity of our export coal from the financial point of view?

Sir A. GEDDES: Yes, from the financial point of view, but I also realise the vital necessity of having enough coal in this country.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: Do I understand that whilst the price of domestic coal is to be limited, the amount to be allowed to private consumers is not to be limited?

Sir A. GEDDES: I said nothing about the amount being free at the present moment. I spoke of the direction in which we were moving with regard to coal control, and when we reach the goal of having only the three-parts of coal control to which I referred, then rations will be off, but in the meantime we shall continue them.

Mr. SEDDON: Will those who give orders this week participate in the reduction coming into force next week?

Sir A. GEDDES: Not if they get the coal this week.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will there be a reduction in the price of domestic coke corresponding with the price of coal?

Sir A. GEDDES: We will work out the necessary figures and give the necessary instructions as to the corresponding reduction in the price of coal purchased by gas and electric undertakings, so that allowances may be made in respect of the amount of coal used in producing gas and electric energy for light and power supplied for domestic and household use.

HOUSEHOLDERS' SUPPLY.

Mr. HAYDAY: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in many districts there is a shortage of coal in spite of the increase in output; it he can state whether the cause of this is due to bad transport, the holding up of stocks, or any action on the part of coal
owners in piling up stocks against the eventuality of a dispute in the mining industry; and whether he will have inquiries made into this matter, and take whatever steps are necessary to secure a sufficient supply to householders?

Sir A. GEDDES: The shortage of supplies of coal which exists iii certain districts is due mainly to lack of transport facilities. I have already had inquiries made, arid everything possible is being done to secure a satisfactory distribution of supplies of household coal. The Ministry of Transport have the matter in hand.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what quantity of coal was stacked during the railway strike, and whether that has been allowed to remain?

Sir A. GEDDES: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question, I have no doubt I can get the information.

Brigadier-General CROFT: In view of the fact that the difficulty is partly due to the shortage of trucks, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the production of rolling stock is proceeding as rapidly as it possibly can?

Sir A. GEDDES: It is very difficult to say I am satisfied with the rate of production of rolling stock, but a great deal is being done to get rolling stock, but there are great difficulties.

Captain BOWYER: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the grave situation existing at Stony Stratford and at Hanslope, in North Bucks, owing to the shortage of coal; and whether he will arrange with the Coal Controller to take urgent steps to remedy the shortage?

Sir A. GEDDES: A representative of the Coal Controller has recently visited the districts referred to by my lion, and gallant Friend, with a view to ascertaining the position as regards coal supplies, and steps will be taken to remedy the shortage as far as possible.

ANTHRACITE SUPPLY.

Mr. MATTHEWS: 34.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the situation brought about in the Welsh anthracite coalfield owing to the shortage and distribution of wagons whereby over 50,000 tons of coal has been lost to home consumers during the last two months, and to
the official statement issued to the effect that anthracite collieries are actually in a position to largely increase supplies by thousands of tons per week; whether he will forthwith take such steps as will remedy this condition of things; and, having regard to the urgency from a national point of view of the further production of coal and of keeping the collieries working, will he cause an immediate inquiry to be made as to the distribution of wagons in the anthracite district and adopt means to mitigate the grave difficulties existing?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am aware of a shortage of wagons in the Welsh anthracite coalfields, the principal reason being that owing to scarcity of shipping a large proportion of coal which was formerly seaborne has been diverted to the railways, necessitating the use of railway wagons over long distances and thus causing a shortage of wagons. The Ministry of Transport and the railway companies concerned are making every effort to improve the situation.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION.

RAILWAY STOCKHOLDERS' PBOSPECTS.

Colonel NEWMAN: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, as laid down by the Railway (Accounts and Returns) Act, the Minister of Transport would supply the management of the various railway systems with the necessary, data to enable them to furnish the stockholders with information as to the present and future prospects of their property?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir. Eric Geddes): The data required by the Railway (Accounts and Returns) Act are prepared by the Railway Companies themselves, and require nothing of the Minister of Transport. In view of the arrangement between the Government and the railways, under which the net receipts of the year 1913 were guaranteed to the railway companies, the Board of Trade authorised the variation in the form of Statutory Accounts, to which the hon. Member presumably refers.

TRADE UNIONS AND CONTROL.

Colonel NEWMAN: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the Government proposals to divide the control and management of the railway systems of the country between those em
ployed on the railways and the management as representing the Government, an appeal board, was to be constituted consisting of four representatives of the employés with two representatives of the trade union and co-operative interest and four representatives of the management with two representatives of the travelling and trading public; and would he say how these two latter representatives were to be chosen or would they be Government nominees?

Sir E. GEDDES: As the Prime Minister stated in an answer to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh on 20th November, I am discussing these questions with the rail way companies and the unions, and I hope to make statement at an early date. The hon. Member has apparently misunderstood the unofficial utterances on this subject, however. The two boards roughly constituted, as in the question, are for the discussion of matters relating to wages and conditions of service only.

Colonel NEWMAN: When may we have an official utterance?

Sir E. GEDDES: As soon as I have something definite to say. At present we are trying to see things eye to eye.

Mr. TERRELL: Would the right hon. Gentleman see that no definite engagement is entered into to hand over any part of the control of the railways to the trade unions without the concurrence of this House?

Sir E. GEDDES: There is no proposal being discussed at all to hand over the control of the railways. The control exists in the hands of the Ministry of Transport, in so far as it is exercised.

Colonel NEWMAN: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether representatives of those employed on the railway systems of the country are to have places in equal proportion to the owners on the boards of the various railways; and, if so, would regulations be made enabling railway shareholders to have representation on the management of the National Union of Railwaymen or other unions which might be represented on the share holders' boards?

Sir E. GEDDES: I have been asked to reply to this question. The answer to the first part is in the negative, and the second I part does not, therefore, arise.

RICHBOROUGH (SALVAGE REMOVAL).

Mr. INSKIP: 31.
asked the Minister of Transport how many open wagons on an average are requisitioned each week from the railway companies for the purpose of removing salvage from Richborough; and whether there is the same urgency for wagons in this connection as at the ordinary commercial ports?

Sir E. GEDDES: The average demand at Richborough for common user wagons over and above those available from inwards traffic is only about 120 per week. The hon. Member will appreciate that the distribution from Richborough of salvaged and returned material from overseas is a, matter of national importance. It is the property of the State.

Mr. INSKIP: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of the question as to whether the disposal of this salvage is more important than getting out stocks which are accumulating at our ports?

Sir E. GEDDES: The value of the salvage is very great, and if it were left to rot at Richborough I think it would outweigh the advantages of moving goods from the other ports at the present time.

RAILWAYS (WAE USE).

Major KELLEY: 36.
asked the Minister of Transport what amount, if any, was paid by the Government during the War and since for the transport of troops, ammunition, etc., for war purposes to the railway companies of this country?

Sir E. GEDDES: No sum has actually been paid to the railway companies for such purposes, but the estimated amounts which would have been payable for all Government traffic are shown in the recently issued Command Paper 402. As from the 1st April last, charges for Government traffic are to be made against the votes of the Departments to which the service is rendered, but the amounts actually payable are still under discussion.

ROAD VEHICLES.

Commander Viscount CURZON: 42.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is in a position to state the names of the Committee which is advising him upon the necessity for new legislation to deal with the use of the motor and other road vehicles, together with the terms of reference; and, in view of the urgency of the matter, when the Report may be expected?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am circulating the, names of the Advisory Committee and the; terms of reference in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

MOTOR OAK ACTS (CONVICTIONS OF MEMBEUS OF PARLIAMENT).

Viscount CURZON: 43.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will state how many times Members of Parliament, or their drivers, have been convicted for offences against the Motor Car Acts?

Sir E. GEDDES: Records of offences against the Motor Car Acts are not matters for the Ministry of Transport, but I understand that if there have been any convictions of Members of Parliament or their drivers they are not specially tabulated.

GOVERNMENT OFFER TO RAILWAYMEN.

Major KELLEY: 49.
asked the Prime Minister if he can see his way in the future: to announce matters of such great importance to the nation as the offer to the railway men through Parliament?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I cannot add anything to the replies which the Prime Minister gave on this subject on Thursday last.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (MR. MBEZ).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. WALL: 33.
asked the Minister of Transport if Mr. C. H. Merz is at present employed by the Ministry of Transport in any, and if so, in what capacity and on what terms; if he was formerly employed in a consulting or any other capacity by the North Eastern Railway Compay; if so, whether his connection with the company has now, ceased entirely; if he will state whether it was intended to make use of the services of Mr. Merz for the carrying out of the arrangements under the Electricity (Supply) Bill should it become law, and: should it provide for the transfer of the powers given thereunder from the Board of Trade to the Ministry of Transport; and, if so, whether any undertaking on this point of any kind has been given to Mr. Merz by or on behalf of the Government, or by the Minister himself unofficially?

Sir E. GEDDES: No, Sir; Mr. Merz is not employed in any capacity by the Ministry of Transport, and it is not and never has been the intention to employ him in the administration of the Electricity (Supply) Bill should it become law,
the Chief Commissioner-designate being Sir John Snell. I have, however, asked Mr. Merz, whose knowledge of the application of electricity to traction is unrivalled, whether in certain circumstances he will assist the Ministry of Transport in questions of electrical traction. As Mr. Merz is now, I believe, in Australia, the matter cannot be carried further at present.

FERRY BOATS (REGULATIONS).

Mr. HINDS: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Department has full powers and Regulations to deal with the safety and prevention of overcrowding of passengers in open ferry boats; and, if so, whether he will see that such Regulations are enforced in respect of the ferry boats plying between Llanstephan and Ferryside in Carmarthenshire?

Sir A. GEDDES: The only ferry boats which come directly under the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade are steam or motor boats; but any serious complaint that is made about any ferry is investigated by a Board of Trade surveyor, and the surveyor's recommendations are nearly always adopted. A complaint has been made about the Llanstephan ferry, and it is being investigated.

SERBIA.

EXPOET OF MONEY.

Captain MOREING: 44.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been directed to a recent decree of the Serbian Government prohibiting the export from that country of money in excess of the following amounts: French francs 1,000, English £30, American 100 dollars, Swiss francs 600, with heavy penalties for contravention and confiscation of any sums in excess of the amounts allowed; and whether he proposes to take any steps to protect British subjects passing through that State, who must of necessity frequently carry sums in excess of the amounts stated above?

Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD (Additional Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs): His Majesty's Minister at Belgrade has reported that the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government are said to have decided to issue a Decree
on the lines indicated by the lion and gallant Member. Similar regulations have recently been introduced in other countries, notably in France, and are designed to alleviate difficulties of exchange and currency, which are at the present time acute in the Serb-Croat-Slovene kingdom. No details have yet been received with regard to the Decree in question, or the manner in which it will be administered, but further inquiries are being made.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Sir S. HOARE: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the decisions arrived at by the Congress of the United States of America, he can make any statement as to the present position of the League of Nations, and as to whether any change will be made in the policy of the United Kingdom with reference to it?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to the answer which I gave on Friday last to my lion. Friend the Member for Widnes.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the action of the Senate of the United States of North America towards the portion of the: Treaty of Peace with Germany dealing with the Covenant of the League of Nations, he will now consider the granting of an opportunity to this House for the discussion of policy with regard to the details of the Covenant of the League of Nations?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think any useful purpose would be served by such a discussion

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is he aware that the League of Nations idea has never been discussed in this House as such, and could he consider giving a day for its discussion, in view of its immense importance and the interest taken in it in the country, before the House rises for Christmas?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it will be possible to find time before Christmas in any case, but though it has not been brought before the House officially, the subject has really been discussed over and over again, and the House has clearly shown its wishes in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BORDER STATES.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is now the intention of his Majesty's Government to recognise the independence of any of the border States of the former Russian Empire other than, the Republics of Finland and Poland?

Mr. BONAR LAW: His Majesty's Government can only act in concert with their Allies, and are not in a position to make any announcement on the subject at present.

MILITARY OPERATIONS (ALLIES' CONTRIBUTIONS).

Mr. NEWBOULD: 50.
asked the Prime Minister how much the other Allied and Associated Powers have respectively contributed to the operations in Russia?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government have no information which would enable me to state the amount of the contributions of each of the Allied and Associated Powers to the operations in Russia.

BALTIC PROVINCES (NEGOTIATIONS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 62.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any in formation with regard to the negotiations for peace or for an Armistice between the Baltic provinces of the former Russian Empire and the Soviet Government of Russia; and whether any member of any British mission in the Baltic provinces will attend at these negotiations in any capacity?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Baltic Conference attended by representatives of the Provisional Governments of Esthonia, Latvia and Lithuania, is at present taking place at Dorpat to discuss the question of negotiations for a cessation of hostilities between the Baltic States and the Soviet Government. As regards the second part of the question, the British Commissioner in the Baltic States is likely to be at Dorpat in the course of the week, but it is not contemplated that he should take any part in the negotiations.

Dr. MURRAY: He will be on the doormat!

ECONOMIC PRESSURE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 63.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs whether he has now received copies of the replies to the Notes addressed by the Supreme Council to the German and neutral Governments, requesting their co-operation in a form of blockade of Soviet Russia; and, if so, what is the nature of such replies?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The only reply of which I have received a copy is that of the German Government, it is a refusal to co-operate in economic pressure on Soviet Russia. I am informed that the Governments of Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Holland, Spain and Switzerland have made replies, summaries of which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Lieut.-Commander KEN WORTHY: What is the Government's policy now with regard to economic pressure, as Germany has refused to co-operate?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Questions of policy must be addressed to the Leader of the House.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Questions of foreign policy?

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKS OF ART (EXPORT DUTY).

Sir W. DAVISON: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that a large number of works of art by old masters have recently been leaving this country for America and elsewhere; and whether he will consider as to the advisability of imposing an increased Export Duty in such cases which would have the effect of discouraging sales of art treasures now in this country to foreigners, or, in the alternative, would provide a substantial addition to the revenue, part of which might be devoted to the purchase of works of art for the national collections?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is at present no duty on the export of works of art from the United Kingdom, but there is much to besaid in favour of imposing such a duty, either on the export of all works of art (except those of living or lately deceased artists), or, perhaps, preferably, on those works of art only for which the benefit of Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1896, and 63 of the Finance Act, 1910, has been claimed, and of earmarking the proceeds of the duty to the purchase of other works for our national
or public collections. If a proposal to this effect seemed likely to meet with general approval, and to pass as an uncontentious measure, I should be very glad to consider the suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL WHOLESALE SOCIETY.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Agricultural Organisation Society, which is subsidised from public funds, is engaged in promoting a trading concern called the Agricultural Wholesale Society; and whether such a purpose is within the objects for winch the funds have been granted by Parliament?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Boscawen): In order to assist the farmers' co-operative movement, which is its principal duty, the Agricultural Organisation Society is: interested in the success of the Agricultural Wholesale Society, which is an enlargement of the Farmers' Central Trading Board, and was formed last year, but has not given and does not give it any pecuniary support.

Major BARNES: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether the action of the Board of Agriculture in issuing literature in which appeals are made for the support of. a trading concern, namely, the Agricultural Wholesale Society, has the consent of the Government; and, if so, is it to be understood that the establishment of private trading concerns with the aid of the State is now part of the policy of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. GALBRAITH: 80.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his Department is prepared to grant the same facilities for advertising its business as those accorded to the Agricultural Society in No. 3 of the Guides to Smallholders to any other trading firm that may be able to satisfy the Department of the efficiency of its organisation and its ability to supply the goods required?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I cannot agree that the Agricultural Wholesale Society I stands on the same footing as a private; trading concern. The Government thinks I it desirable that Service; men intending to settle on the land as smallholders and the
co-operative societies formed for their benefit should be aware of the facilities afforded by the Agricultural Wholesale Society.

Mr. NEWBOULD: Does that mean that this society has a grant of money from the Board of Agriculture?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: If my hon. Friend means the Agricultural Wholesale Society, the answer is in the negative.

Mr. E. WOOD: May I ask whether it is a fact that this society is trading entirely for public purposes and not for private profit?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It is trading entirely for the benefit of the co-operative movement among farmers and smallholders.

Mr. GALBRAITH: 79.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether it is a fact, as stated by his Department in its published literature, that the Agricultural Organisation Society, acting as the recognised official agent of his Board, does pay out of public funds the registration fee and other charges incidental thereto for the Agricultural Cooperative Society it promotes; and, if so, whether this practice has the approval of the Government?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The hon. Member has misinterpreted the reference in the Guide to Smallholders, No. 3, issued for the information of Service men intending to settle on the land. The Agricultural Organisation Society does not pay the registration fees and other charges incidental thereto for the co-operative societies which it promotes. Through its assistance and advice these expenses are reduced to a minimum, but they are all paid by the cooperative societies themselves.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOUGLAS-PENNANT INQUIRY.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 55.
asked the Primo Minister whether he can state the approximate total cost to all parties concerned of the recent Committee of Inquiry of the House of Lords into the case of Miss Violet Douglas-Pennant; what portion of that cost will fall on the public purse; and whether a method can be devised whereby persons who are, in the course of such an Inquiry, made the subject of charges which turn out to be totally un-
founded may be protected against the cost of defending themselves against such charges?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not possible at present to state the approximate total cost of the recent Inquiry, or what portion of it will fall on the public purse. As regards the last part of the question, my hon. and learned Friend's suggestion is receiving consideration.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will my right hon. Friend consider the propriety of making provision that evidence given before these Committees of Inquiry shall not be regarded as privileged?

HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

Mr. BONAR LAW: Nobody knows better than my hon. and learned Friend that that would be a very big departure to make.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER OF MUNITIONS.

Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether any decision has been arrived at as to winding-up the Ministry of Munitions or as to converting it into a Ministry of Supply?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No decision as to the future of the Ministry has yet been taken, but it has much necessary work to do in the disposal of surplus stores.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of hastening a decision in this matter, as it affects a great many things?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not see any need for an immediate decision, because there is evidently work for this Department for a long time yet in disposing of these stores.

Mr. E. WOOD: Is there a Ministry of Supply in existence to-day, or is it the Ministry of Munitions?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is the Ministry of Munitions.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEATH CERTIFICATION.

Mr. ROWLANDS: 57 and 100.
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he is aware that the Select Committee on Death Certification, 1893, reported that they were much impressed with the serious possibilities implied in a system which permits death and burial to take place without the production of satisfactory
medical evidence of the cause of death, and that the Departmental Committee on the Law relating to Coroners, in their Report of 1910, stated that the present law of death certification offers every opportunity for premature burial and every facility for the concealment of crime; that nothing has been done since the dates mentioned to remedy these evils; if he will bring in legislation to give effect to the recommendations of these Committees, arid to guard against the dangers to which they called attention;
(2) the Minister of Health what was the number of uncertified deaths in England and Wales for the five years 1914 to 1918, respectively; and what was the proportion per 100 of such uncertified deaths to the total number of deaths in England and Wales in each of these years?

The PAYMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Tudor Walters—for Dr. Addison): As the reply is necessarily somewhat lengthy, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The following is the reply referred to:
The figures asked for are as follow:



Total deaths.
Unncertified deaths.
Proportion.


1914
516,742
6,279
1.22


1915
562.25;',
7,684
1.37


1916
508,217
7,528
1.48


1917
498.922
7,552
1.51


1918
611,861
8,244
1.37


Steps were taken in 1914 to reduce, so far as this object could be secured by administrative action, the dangers alluded to by requiring registrars to report all uncertified deaths to a coroner; so that all of the cases included in the above figures as "uncertified" have in fact been considered by a coroner, and either been made the subject of an inquest or been decided by the coroner not to need one. But, in my opinion, the present law of death certification needs reform, and the matter is receiving attention with a view to its being dealt with so far as possible in legislation as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.

Dr. M'DONALD: 58.
asked the Prime Minister if he will take immediate steps to appoint a Committee to inquire into
the best means of adopting compulsory insurance against unemployment and report to this House thereon?

Mr. WARDLE: I have been asked to reply to this question. Several Committees have already made reports on this matter, and I do not think any useful purpose would be served by appointing another Committee at this stage. It is hoped to lay proposals before the House at an early date as a basis for discussion.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES.

Major TRYON: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will undertake to submit for the approval of the House of Commons any proposals, they may have for further subsidies before committing themselves to any extension of this principle?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As my lion. Friend knows, the Government have put an end to some of the subsidies given in consequence of the War, and are anxious at the earliest possible moment to end them all. It would not, however, be possible, without a careful definition of the term subsidy, to give the undertaking in the form asked for.

Oral Answers to Questions — MONTENEGRO.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: 60
asked (l) the Prime Minister whether any proposal has ben made at the Allied Council in Paris that Serbia should be requested to make compensation to Montenegro for the burning of over 3,000 Montenegrin dwellings and the assassination of large numbers of Montenegrin people, including women and children, by Serbian soldiers in occupation of that country; and, if not, in view of the fact that in 1915 the remnant of the Serbian Army was saved from destruction by the gallantry of the Montenegrin Army in covering its retreat through Montenegrin territory, and also that the continued occupation of Monte negro by Serbian troops has no justification in international law and amounts to war by one of our Allies against another, whether he will bring the claims of Montenegro for compensation before the Council of the Allies, in which Monte negro is unrepresented;
(2) the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet seen
the summary of the De Salis Report on Montenegro published in the Paris edition of the "Chicago Tribune" on the 1st November, exposing the bogus character of the so-called Parliament of Podgoritza, and declaring that the people of Montenegro have no desire to be annexed by Serbia; whether the publication of some of the principal (ladings of the Report has led him to alter the decision not to lay the Report upon the Table of the House;
(3) whether, in view of his statement that the publication of the De Salis Report on Montenegro would be dangerous for those Montenegrins who gave information to Count de Salis, he will consider the publication of the Report with the omission of the names of those who would be so endangered;
(4) whether any Ally, other than Monte negro, who actually fought against the Central Powers and whose country was overrun by the enemy, was excluded from the Peace Conference; what was the reason for the exceptional treatment of Montenegro;
(5) whether, in view of his statement that Montenegro has not been a signatory to any of the Peace Treaties so far concluded at Paris which did not directly concern the Montenegrin people, the Treaty with Austria-Hungary has yet been; signed; and whether the people of Monte negro are directly concerned with the settlement of the Balkan peninsula?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have seen the document purporting to be an extract from Count de Salis' Report on Montenegro, in which my lion, and learned Friend refers, and see no reason to modify the statements already rcudc in the House on this subject.
As previously stated in this House, the representation of Montenegro was accepted by the Peace Conference in principle; but, as Montenegro is not adjacent to Austria, it was not necessary for the Treaty of Peace with Austria to be signed by a Montenegrin representative. The people of Montenegro are, of course, directly concerned with the settlement the Balkan Peninsula, and the decision has been left open as to how their representative should be chosen.
The Prime; Minister has asked me to say that His Majesty's Government do not know of any claim for compensation such as that alluded to by my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. McNEILL: The question I asked was whether he would propose that compensation should be given for the wrongs that have been committed?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I understood the question to be whether a proposal has been made to the Allies that Serbia should be requested to make compensation, and no such proposal has been made, so far as we know.

Mr. McNEILL: Will the hon. Gentleman use his influence that such a proposal shall be made?

Colonel NEWMAN: Is it a fact that over 3,000 buildings were burned?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot accept that statement as a statement of fact, because I do not know. The other question should be addressed to the Leader of the House.

Mr. McNEILL: May I ask when there will be somebody here from the Foreign Office who does know?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am sorry for my hon. and learned Friend, but I am from the Foreign Office. In reference to the 3,000 dwellings, neither the Foreign Office nor anyone else in authority can vouch for that as a statement of fact.

Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: 64.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Report on the conditions in Montenegro was made by the British officer who accompanied General Franchet d'Esperey thither in January of this year in the course of his military duties; and, if so, whether the Report can be made available for the information of the public?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: An unofficial and confidential report was made by the officer in question. It was not intended, however, for publication.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH QUESTION (BRITISH AMBASSADOR IN UNITED STATES).

Mr. JELLETT: 65.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington has gone there with any mission as regards the Irish question?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington has, as regards the Irish question, only the Mission which is entrusted to all representatives of His
Majesty abroad of explaining when necescary the policy of His Majesty's Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SUBJECTS IMPRISONED IN UNITED STATES.

Mr. A. SHORT: 69.
asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the following British subjects: Charles Ashleigh, Sam Scarlett, James H. Manning, Richard Brazier, B. Lorton, William Moran, J. Oats, D. Buckley, T. Frazer, H. Lloyd, C. L. Lambert, P. M'Avoy, H. MacCosham, C. H. M'Kinnon, J. A. M'Donald, A. B Prashner, and D. Sheridan are now in Leavenworth Prison, Leavenworth, Kansas, United States of America, serving sentences of imprisonment ranging from five to twenty years, in some cases in permanent isolation; that these men, who one and all declared their innocence of the charge of hindering the. Government's war programme, were given an unsatisfactory form of trial; and whether, in view of the length and nature of the sentences, he will make representations on behalf of these British subjects to the United States Government?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have no information regarding the trial of the British subjects named in the question, but I am making inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — HAY.

PROSECUTIONS FOR OVERCHARGING.

Brigadier-General CROFT: 74.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in the event of hay for which the full purchase price has not been paid by the civil bureaux or other Government authority being sold the following year, interest on the 1918 price is charged; and whether such interest is paid to the dealer or to the farmer?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I have been asked to answer this question. In the case of all hay of the 1918 crop, of which delivery has not been taken, interest is paid, calculated on the actual purchase price. The farmer is given the full benefit of this interest.

Brigadier-General CROFT: Will my right hon. Friend say what the interest is?

Mr. FORSTER: I think it is 5 per cent.

Brigadier-General CROFT: 75 and 123.
asked (1) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether any 1918 bay has been sold by dealers in 1919 at a price higher than £8 per ton plus commission, which price was paid under the Defence of the Realm Act in 1918;
(2) The Secretary of State for War what steps are taken to see that 1918 hay, which was purchased under the Defence of the Realm Act in that year, and which has passed into the hands of dealers, will be sold at the 1918 price?

Mr. FORSTER: I have been asked to reply. A number of cases of over-charging for hay by dealers have been reported to the Forage Department, and in every case the offenders have been prosecuted and fined. Similar action will be taken in any further cases that come to notice.

Brigadier-General CROFT: In the case of serious offences, has the question of imprisonment been considered?

Mr. FORSTER: I am not sure that the question of imprisonment has been considered. I will undertake that it shall be.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUSSELS (ABERDOVEY AND BARMOUTH).

Mr. HAYDN JONES: 76.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Board has made any bacteriological examination of mussels from the mussel cleansing tanks erected by the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Committee, at Aberdovey and Barmouth; if so, what is the result of such examination; and, if not, upon what evidence has the Board declined to fix a period of quarantine for the cleansing of mussels in the tanks?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The Board were guided by reports of their responsible officers that the conditions affecting the tanks were such that no guarantee could be given that mussels relaid in them would be adequately cleansed.

Mr. JONES: 77.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in refusing to approve of the mussel cleansing tanks at Barmouth and Aberdovey, the Board acted solely on their own responsibility, or whether, seeing that the matter was one dealing with public health, the advice of the
Ministry of Health was obtained: and, if so, what was the nature of the advice submitted by them?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Board acted in accordance with the responsibility placed upon them by the Provisional Order under which the tanks were constructed. I shall be happy to request my right lion. Friend the Minister of Health to arrange for a joint inspection of the tanks by officers of the Ministry and of the Board it the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Committee so desire.

Mr. JONES: 78.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Board will arrange for a bacteriological examination of the mussels deposited for a period of not less than forty-eight hours in the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Committee's mussel cleansing tanks at Aberdovey and Barmouth, respectively?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, if the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Committee so desire.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNITIONS.

SURPLUS TYPEWRITERS.

Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: 81.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether the Ministry have received for purposes of disposal any typewriters set free by the recent reduction in the staffs of Government Departments; and, if not, what has become of the typewriters so released?

The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): All typewriters issued by the Stationery Office to Government Departments for use remain the property of the Stationery Office, and when no longer required by the Department to I which they have been issued they are returned to the Stationery Office for reissue. The only Government Department, therefore, which holds typewriters is the Stationery Office. No machines have been notified to the Disposal Board as surplus to requirements by that Office, since all those returned from Government Departments are required for reissue to other Departments. I am advised by the Stationery Office that the stock of machines actually ready for reissue which is held by them is not more than a few days' supply.

CONTRACTORS' ACCOUNTS

Mr. SEDDON: 82.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he is aware of the feelings that are being expressed by contractors to his Department at the delays in settlement of accounts owing them, while at the same time they are being pressed by the Treasary for the payment of excess profits almost entireiy payable on amounts owing to them by the Ministry of Munitions; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): The officers of the Ministry of Munitions are doing everything possible to expedite the settlement of accounts, and on this point I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Ashford, and to the hon. Member for North Newcastle, on 17th November. Certain cases of hardship such as my bun Friend suggests have recently been brought to my notice, and I am communicating with the Inland Revenue authorities on the matter.

CLOTHING AND CLOTH.

Mr. BRIANT: 84.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions what precautions will be taken to see that the clothing and cloth sold, by tender will not be retailed at excessive profits?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The Disposal Board is in, constant communication with the Profiteering Department of the Board of Trade, and keeps that Department informed as to the particulars of sales effected.

Mr. BRIANT: Cannot this House be informed as to the course that is taken?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I have informed my hon. Friend of the course taken. The Profiteering Department of the Board of Trade has given full information of all the sales effected, the names, and the prices charged.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONTRACTORS.

Mr. SHORT: 85.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he can state the total amount contributed, since the Armistice, by his Department towards; the extensions of certain large steel and other works; whether such contributions are due to the absence of a break clause in the contracts;
if so, whether he will state the names of the firms receiving benefit and to what extent in each case?

Mr. HOPE: Until a final settlement has been arrived at with the Inland Revenue authorities for depreciation and allowances for redundancy in each case, it is impossible to state the total liability of the Ministry of Munitions on account of guaranteed contributions to contractors towards capital expenditure undertaken at the instance of the Government. These contributions have nothing to do with the absence of a break clause in the contracts.

BOXES (SALE AND RE-PURCHASE).

Dr. MURRAY: 93.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he is aware that no action was taken on its being reported by a Ministry official that boxes were being sold to a contractor for 6d. each and bought back by this Department of the Ministry for 5s. 6d each; and whether the official to whom this was reported and who should have taken the matter up has since been honoured in the recommendation of the Ministry of Munitions by a knighthood?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I am aware that the statement contained in the first part of my hon. Friend's question has been given currency by certain newspapers. No details have ever been supplied which would enable the alleged transaction to be identified. If my hon. Friend will furnish me with any information on the subject I shall be very grateful

REGISTRATION OF NURSES.

Sir S. HOARE: 98.
asked the Minister of Health whether it is proposed to put upon the Council to be set up, under the proposed Registration of Nurses Bill, a representative of the Poor Law nursing services?

Sir T. WALTERS: It would be premature at this stage to make any statement in regard to appointments to be made to the first Council, but I am fully alive to the importance of securing that the Council shall be as representative as possible of all types of the nursing service.

TUBERCULOUS EX-SERVICE MEN.

Lieut.- Colonel RAW: 99.
asked the Minister of Health if he has considered the recommendations of the Committee
with regard to treatment and training of tuberculous ex-Service men, as the matter is one of serious urgency to the men concerned?

Sir T. WALTERS: Yes, Sir. Immediately the Report was received steps were taken to expedite the carrying into effect of its recommendations, as indicated in my reply to the hon. Member on the 10th instant on the same subject. And I have just received a further letter of consent from the Treasury in respect of the development of training facilities.

OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.

Mr. H. JONES: 102.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in cases where workmen in regular employment are unemployed for a portion of a week owing to stoppage of machinery or other cause, they are entitled, irrespective of the amount earned for the. remainder of the week, to out-of-work donation; and, if so, what are the sums paid on this account up to date for England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, respectively?

Mr. WARDLE: Payment of donation in such a case is limited by the Rules as to the "waiting period" which must elapse before payment begins and by the requirement that a special tribunal must be satisfied that the stoppage is due to some industrial cause. Subject to these limitations, donation would be payable on the Same terms as if the workmen were out of a situation, and no account is taken of the amount he earns when in work. The hon. Member is aware that payment of donation is now limited to ex-members of His Majesty's Forces. The amount paid in out-of-work donation on account of short-time working between 3rd May, 1919, and 7th November, 1919, was as follows:


England
£216,430


Scotland
74,383


Ireland
300,093


Wales
14,248


During the same, period the total amount of donation paid was:


England
£16,064,541


Scotland
2,075,296


Ireland
2,763,694


Wales
461,887

Major BREESE: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the "waiting period" applies to men and women in regular employment?

Mr. WARDLE: Yes.

POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONES (COST OF INSTALLATIONS).

Major BLAIR: 103.
asked the Postmaster General if the cost of transferring a telephone from the Kingston to the Chingford exchange is £22 17s.; and, if so, considering that no poles had to be fixed will he say how this charge is made up, stating whether telephone subscribers are now to be called upon to pay for the necessary plant?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): Charges for exceptional removals are based on the cost incurred by the Post Office. In the case which the hon. Member has in mind, the cost, which was reasonable for the work involved, covered considerable additions to an existing pole line. This was necessary before any new wires were erected; but I will consider whether a reduction of the charge can be made on the ground that the work will be useful for other prospective circuits.

Major BLAIR: 104.
asked the Postmaster General when the present system of charging the users of trunk telephones by areas is to be altered; and, as trunk telephone charges are usually made according to distance, will he consider the advisability of having printed in the Post Office Guide the mileage from London, and so enable users to see for what they are being charged?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The question of telephone areas is being considered in connection with the revision of telephone tariffs, and the hon. Member's suggestion will be borne in mind.

DELIVERY OF LETTERS (NORFOLK).

Mr. JODRELL: 106.
asked the Postmaster General at what date the proposed new service for delivery of letters in the villages of Docking, Stanhoe, Bagthorpe, Barmer, and the Burnhams in Norfolk will be put in force; and if he is aware that in spite of constant complaints as to the lateness of the present deliveries no redress has been given, and that the dissatisfaction among the inhabitants, and especially the farming industry, is intense?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am having inquiry made, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

REINSTATEMENT AFTER DEMOBILISATION (BRATIFOED).

Captain LOSEBY: 107.
asked the Postmaster General if his attention has been called to the case of ex Corporal Harold Gath, who, upon joining His Majesty's Forces, was personally thanked by the then Postmaster-General for giving up a well paid post in the poet office at Bradford in order to do so; if he is aware that the post office at Bradford now refuses to take him back into its employ and that considerable indignation has been caused by this action in the matter; and if he will consider the advisability of issuing such instructions as will secure the re-engagement of this ex-soldier and make the recurrence of incidents of this kind impossible?

Mr. ILLlNGWORTH: Ex-Corporal Gath was employed in the Bradford Post Office in a purely temporary capacity, in place of a member of the regular staff absent with the Forces, from March, 1915, until he was himself called up under the Derby Scheme in August, 1916. During this period he did not show aptitude for Post Office work, and his service was not altogether satisfactory. His temporary employment gave him no claim to reinstatement on discharge from the Army, and I regret that further employment is not available for him.

REQUISITIONED PREMISES (BRATIFOED).

Brigadier-General Sir OWEN THOMAS: 96.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether the Wheat Commission relinquished occupation of rooms 70, 72, 73, and 74, on the sixth floor of Carlton House Regent Street S. W., on the 24th October, 1919 and that they have since been empty; whether the rent is still being paid by His Majesty's Government for such rooms; and, if so, whether this apparent waste of public money is due to the fact that His Majesty's Office of Works, in spite of repeated applications by the landlord, are unable to hand over the premises to him for use of waiting tenants by reason of the Wheat Commission still neglecting officially to inform His Majesty's Office of Works that the rooms have been vacated?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): I must apologise for not being present earlier. The Wheat Commission vacated rooms NOS. 70 and 74 on the sixth floor of Carlton House on the 24th ultimo, but not rooms Nos. 72 and 73, which are still in their occupation. Compensation is still being paid to the landlord in respect of the two vacant rooms, which were un-tenanted when requisitioned arid which are still being retained to enable a rearrangement of staff to be effected, so that four other rooms can be surrendered which were tenanted when requisitioned and to which the dispossessed tenants now desire to return.

Sir O. THOMAS: These rooms are vacant and the Government are paying rent. Will the right hon, entleman see that the tenants who want these rooms got them as soon os possible?

Sir A. MOND: Those rooms are being retained vacant at the moment—they are not required by the tenants—to enable the tenants whose rooms are being used to return to their premises as soon as possible.

HYDE PARK (PROPOSED TRAM- WAY).

Commander Viscount CURZON: 97.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he has refused permission for the London County Council to post certain notices relating to a tramway through Hyde Park?

Sir A. MOND: The answer is in the affirmative. The first official notice of this proposal to my Department is dated as recently as the 22nd October last, and in any case it is not customary to place such notices upon Crown property. As Custodian of the Royal Parks, I feel that the introduction of tramways into Hyde Park would be highly detrimental to its amenities, and to its enjoyment by the public.

Sir F. HALL: May I ask my right hon. Friend if his Department is to prejudge the case; and is not this question of transport of more importance in these timesthan—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No, no"]—if necessary—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—Mr. Speaker—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of his question.

Sir F. HALL: On a point of Order, Sir. I was only desirous of finishing my question if the House will allow me!

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member had better write it down.

Sir F. HALL: Perhaps, then, the right hon. Gentleman will be present at Question time!

ROYAL NAVY.

SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION STATION.

Mr. NEWBOULD: 108.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the Admiralty station at Shandon, Dumbartonshire, was taken over by the Admiralty; what was the number of the staff employed there; and what expenditure has been incurred in connection with it?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): This establishment was and is designed to pursue scientific investigation for the Navy. The premises were taken over by the Admiralty in April, 1918. The largest number on the staff was 290. The number of the staff at present employed at the station is 285. The cost to the Admiralty of acquiring the station, including the purchase of the buildings and land with fittings and furniture, the cost of subsequent alterations and additions, and the cost of the machinery since installed is approximately £100,000. The running expenses of this establishment have been and are being reduced, but to what extent cannot be decided until peace requirements of a research establishment of moderate dimensions have been determined, and these are now under consideration.

DISABLED OFFICERS.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 111.
asked if the pay of all officers on the active list who have been disabled in the War and placed on the retired list will be assessed at the new rates?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The service retired pay of all officers disabled in the present, War is being reassessed at the new rates.

NON-EXECUTIVE BRANCHES (PROMOTION).

Sir B. FALLE: 112.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if the new Regulations for promotion in the non-executive branches have been applied to officers disabled in the War; if not, if he can give the reason; and if the old Regulation of
allowing officers when invalided under the age of forty to retire at half-pay rates has been cancelled?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The new Reguletions for promotion in the non-executive branches were not intended to be retrospective, and, therefore, applied only to officers on the active list on the 1st July, 1919. Officers disabled in the War and invalided before that date are not affected. The old regulation under which officers invalided under the age of forty were retired on the half-pay of their rank has been cancelled so far as officers below the rank of commander are concerned, and a revised scale substituted, which is given on page 24 of the White Paper. Officers of the rank of commander and above continue to be retired in such circumstances on the half-pay of their rank.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE'S OFFICE.

Major HILLS: 113.
asked the Attorney-General how many of the women employed in the Public Trustee's office are employed on administrative work, clerical work, and the care of the office, respectively; and will he give the names, salaries, and duties of all women employed on administrative work?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I am informed that of the 848 women employed in the office of the Public Trustee 484 are upon the establishment, 281 are employed temporarily, and 83 are messengers Among those who are upon the establishment are one superintendent of female staff, two assistant superintendents, three lady visitors, eleven principal women clerks, one bearer securities officer, one chief superintendent of typists, and 413 first and second class women clerks and writing assistants. I understand that all the posts may, in a sense, be described as clerical, with the exception of those of the lady visitors, the welfare supervisor of girl messengers, and the girl messengers themselves. It is riot easy within the limits of an answer to enter into further detail, but I shall be happy to show to my hon. and gallant Friend a complete schedule of the women employed in the office.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we right in understanding that the whole cost of these falls upon the people who go to the Public Trustee, and not upon the public?

Sir G. HEWART: Sir, I must ask for notice of that question.

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.

Sir S. HOARE: 115.
asked the Minister of Labour what reforms are being carried out in the staffing and housing of the Employment Exchanges as a result of the Report of the Committee on Unemployment Donation?

Mr. WARDLE: In the matter of staff the Committee laid particular stress upon the fact that nine-tenths of the staff at the Employment Exchanges consist of temporary assistants who, having no prospect of permanent engagements, are continually leaving for other work. An increased permanent establishment (both male and female) has been sanctioned by the Treasury, and steps are being taken to fill the new permanent posts from the lists of successful candidates at the examinations held, or shortly to be held, by the Civil Service Commissioners.
As regards premises, the hon. Member will realise that to carry out any extensive programme at the present time is both difficult and costly; but, in consultation with the Treasury and the Office of Works, the Department are pressing forward with such improvements as are possible under existing conditions.

ARMY PAY OFFICE (WOMEN).

Sir S. HOARE: 116.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the women who have worked throughout the War in the Army Pay Office, and are now on the point of dismissial, will be entitled to unemployment donation?

Mr. WARDLE: I understand that the women referred to in the question have been employed in the Army Pay Office in a civilian capacity. The civilian out-of-work donation scheme terminates to-day, and, therefore, the women will not be entitled to out-of-work donation if and when they are subsequently discharged. I may, however, add that officials of the Employment Exchanges throughout the country are in close touch with the. various Army pay offices, and that in respect of previous discharges a considerable measure of success has attended the efforts of the Exchange to find the women suitable employment. These efforts will, of course, continue.

Colonel J. WARD: Is it not the fact that these women are really doing; the work that used to be done by the ordinary soldier in the Pay Department?

Mr. WARDLE: In many cases I believe that is so.

Colonel J. WARD: In every case!

ROYAL DOCKYARDS (DISCHARGES)

Sir C. KINLOCH-CQOKE (by Private Notice): asked whether the First Lord of the Admiralty is now in a position to give the decision of the Admiralty on the recent ballot at Devonport on the Admiralty proposal for a shortened week in the dockyard?

Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend's question only reached me within the last half hour, a fact for which I understand my hon. Friend is not responsible. As he knows, we put to the men the proposal for short time with no further discharges up to the 31st March, pending advice to us from the Committee initiated by the Prime Minister as to the feasibility of utilising the dockyard facilities now to be eet free from naval effort upon other work of a productive character.
The men were invited to ballot upon this proposal. But with the exception of Chatham, it could not be said that the vote gave us any clear indication of the wishes of the men. The Devonport figures were:


For the proposal.
5,875


Against
2,628


Did not vote
7,571


The figures for Portsmouth and Sheer-ness were even less conclusive of the men's willingness to fall in with this plan. On Friday last, therefore, we dispatched the following telegram to the Admiral Superintendents of Portsmouth, Devonport, and Sheerness, respectively:
The Admiralty have decided that as there is no pronounced indication of feeling in favour of adoption of short time proposals at Portsmouth, Devonport, and Sheerness, the proposal shall not be proceeded with there. The discharges due to-morrow will therefore he operative and notices of discharge will be issued as usual. This decision is to be communicated to all concerned. A further detailed communication will be made us soon as possible.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right lion. Gentleman say whether it is not contrary to the view expressed by the Leader of the House on Thursday that
these men would be able to obtain relief from the National Relief Fund, and will he say, in in the event of distress arising from these discharges, what steps the Government propose to take?

Dr. MACNAMARA: There is no need to assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the situation is receiving very careful consideration from us.

GERMAN ARMY (STRENGTH).

Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister whether there is any foundation for the statement that Germany has an army of over 500,000 men under arms; and, if so, whether this is not a flagrant infringement of the Treaty of Versailles?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The number is, I believe, exaggerated. This is, of course, one of the questions which is always being kept in view by the Supreme Council, in order that the terms of the Treaty after ratification may be carried out.

Colonel LOWTHER: Are the Allied Governments satisfied that the German Army has been disbanded, and that only a glorified police force has been substituted in its stead, as was agreed by the Treaty?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think my hon. Friend has misunderstood the Treaty. The limitation of the numbers was only to take effect biter ratification, but clearly it is the supreme duty of the Allied Council to make sure that we are running the risk of not being able to enforce it, and the strength of the German force is one of those things entrusted to Marshal Foch which we may be sure is not being lost sight of.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are not some of these men being kept under arms in order to assist us in repressing the Bolsheviks in Russia?

SEX DISQUALIFICATION (REMOVAL) BILL [Lords.]

Lords Reason for disagreeing to one of the Commons Amendments and Lords Amendments to out; of the Commons Amendments to tin: Bill to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 215.]

MENTAL DEFICIENCY AND LU- NACY (AMENDMENT) [MONEY].

Committee to consider of authorising the removal of the limit imposed by Section forty-seven of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, and by Section thirty-seven of the Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1913, on the contributions which may be made by the Treasury under those Sections, and to extend the powers of district boards of control in Scotland to borrow money—(King's Recommendation signified)—To-morrow.—[Mr. 8horft.]

BILL PRESENTED.

EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL,— "to make further provision with respect to Education in Ireland; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. MACPHERSON; supported by the Attorney-General for Ireland and the Solicitor General for Ireland; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 214.]

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

CLAUSE 7.—(Acquisition of Generating Stations.)

(1) As from such date or dates as may be specified in the Order constituting a district electricity board, all generating stations then existing within the district, cither than railway generating stations, dock generating stations, and private generating stations, and such main transmission lines as may be specified in the Order, other than main transmission lines belonging or leased to railway companies, shall by virtue of this Act vest in the district electricity board, subject to the payment by the board to the owners thereof of the standard price, but freed and discharged from all mortgages and other charges to which the same may be subject, and the proviso to Section seventy-eight of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, shall apply as if the generating stations or main transmission lines had been sold under Section two of the Electric Lighting Act, 1888.

Where the generating station of any company is vested in or acquired by a district electricity board under this Act, and the company has created and issued mortgages, debentures, or debenture stock, whether irredeemable or not, charged upon such generating station, it shall be lawful for the company to give notice to the holders of such mortgages, debentures, or debenture stock to repay the same in whole or in part out of the proceeds of such sale not withstanding anything contained in the mortgage or the debentures or debenture stock trust deed, but in the case of debentures and debenture stock at the rate at winch the debentures or debenture stock could be paid off in the event of the winding up of the company:

Provided always that the cost which an auditor appointed by the Electricity Commissioners certifies to have been necessarily incurred in obtaining the release of any mortgage or other charge shall be borne and paid by the district electricity board:

Provided that in any case where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Electricity Commissioners that any particular generating station is so small or so situated or equipped that it could not conveniently be used for the purposes of the undertaking of the district electricity board, or for any other reason it is not desirable that such station should vest as hereinbefore provided, the Electricity Commissioners shall, after giving the owner of the generating station an opportunity of being heard, by Order exempt the district electricity board, for such period as may be specified in the Order, from the obligation of acquiring the generating station under this Sub-section.

(2) For the purposes of this Section the standard price—

(a) in the case of a generating station or main transmission line belonging to a local authority, shall be one or more annuities of such amount or amounts und con-
tinuing for such period or periods as an auditor appointed by the Electricity Commissioners certifies to be required to indemnify the local authority against their liabilities for interest and sinking fund charges in respect of such sums borrowed for the purpose of providing the generating station or main transmission line as are at the date of transfer outstanding:

Provided that in lieu of such annuity or annuities a local authority shall be entitled, if it shall so elect, to be paid such sum as may, in default of agreement, be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade to have been the cost of and incidental to the construction of the generating station or main transmission line and the acquisition of the site thereof, less depreciation:

Provided further that if in any case it is proved to the satisfaction of the Electricity Commissioners that a substantial part of the cost of the generating station, or main transmission line, has been defrayed otherwise than by means of loans, or that for any other exceptional reason the calculation in the manner aforesaid of the annuity to be paid would work injustice, any such annuity may be increased by such umlaut as the Electricity Commissioners think just:

(b) in the case of a generating station or main transmission line belonging to a company or person, shall be such sum as may be certified by an auditor, after hearing the parties interested, appointed by the Electricity Commissioners to have been the cost of I he lands, buildings, works, materials, and plant suitable to and in actual use by the company or person for the purposes of their undertaking which are vested in the district electricity board, together with the amount of the expenses incurred as and incidental to the construction of the generating station or main transmission line, and the acquisition of the site there of, less depreciation, but with the addition of a sum as compensation for any damage shown to be sustained by any company, body or person due to the severance the generating station Of m in transmission lines, always having regard to the value the obligation in Sub-section (5) of this Section.

The expenditure which is to be taken into account as being such expenses as aforesaid, and the amount of such depreciation as a foresaid, shall be determined in accordance with regulations made by the Electricity Commissioners:

Provided that if on the application of the company or person or of the district electricity hoard, it is shown to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that the expenditure so to be taken into account or the amount of depreciation so determined would work injustice, the expenditure so to be taken into account or the amount of depreciation, as the case may be, shall, in default of agreement, be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Hoard of Trade.

(3) Where the owners of any generating station or main transmission line which by virtue of this Section is vested in a district electricity
board are entitled to any easement or right or the benefit of any contract, and it appears to the Electricity Commissioners that the transfer, of the easement or right or benefit of the contract to the district electricity board is necessary for the proper enjoyment by the board of the generating station or main transmission line, the Electricity Commissioners may by Order transfer to the board the easement, right, or benefit on payment by the board of such consideration as failing agreement may be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade.

(4) A district electricity board may, with the consent, of the Electricity Commissioners, by agreement with the owners thereof acquire any railway generating station or private generating station or any main transmission line from any such station on such terms as may be agreed.

(5) Whenever a district electricity board acquire a generating station under this Section they shall be under an obligation thenceforth to supply to the authority, company, or person, from whom it is transferred, electricity not fess in amount than could have been generated at the generating station by that authority, company, or person, at a price not greater than the cost at which it could have been so generated, and in the event of any change in the type of current frequency or pressure to pay such expenses as the authority, company, or person may necessarily incur in con sequence of such change, and if any question arises as to such amount or cost, in expenses, the question shall be determined by the Electricity Commissioners, and in determining such cost regard shall be had to capital charges (including interest on capital), cost of fuel and labour, and other costs of generation, and to any reduction of costs which might reasonably have been expected to accrue from any improvement of the generating station and plant therein which is proved to the satisfaction of the Electricity Commissioners to have been on the eighth day of May, nineteen hundred and nineteen, under consideration by such authority, company, or person with a probability of early execution.

(6) Where a generating station or main trans mission line has been vested in or acquired by a district electricity board under tins Section the board may, subject to the approval of the Electricity Commissioners, agree with the former owner thereof that such owner shall work and maintain the game on behalf of the board for such period and on such terms as may be agreed between them.

(7) Where a generating station, which is vested in a district electricity board under this Section, is in course of construction, extension, or repair the rights and liabilities of the former owners thereof under airy contract for such construction, extension, or repair shall be transferred to the district electricity board.

(8) Interest at the rate of six per centum per annum upon the standard price snail be paid by the district electricity board to the former owners of any such generating station or main transmission line as from the date of vesting thereof in such board until payment.

(9) Where in any generating station vested in a district electricity board under this Section there is contained any plant which, in the opinion of the Electricity Commissioners, forms an essential part of the distribution system of the former owners of the generating station, that plant shall, notwithstanding such vesting, re main the property of Its former owners, who
shall, so long as electricity is supplied for distribution from that station, at all times have the right of access thereto.

(10) Provided that if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Electricity Commissioners that for any exceptional reason the calculation of the standard price would work injustice, the matter shall be referred to an arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of Trade.

Amendment moved [20th November:] In Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "railway generating stations, dock generating stations, and."

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I propose to ask the permission of the House to withdraw this Amendment, and I can explain very shortly why I do so. As I told the House on Thursday last, this Amendment was put down for the purpose not of pressing it through, but of discussion. When I agreed to that method of reopening the question and re-discussing it, and when I agreed that this Amendment should go down in my name, I had entirely forgotten that I had been a party to an agreement last Tuesday, and that there were one or two points with regard to the arrangements of railways which it was necessary to discuss. Having regard to my own position, I confess that I should have given the railway companies notice of the reasons win we had put this Amendment down. There were one or two points which required to be reconsidered in order to see if they were properly covered.
It was essential, whatever happened, that substantially the whole of the electricity supply should be under one guiding control. We had arranged that so far as the existing generating stations were concerned, railway and dock generating stations should not be included; and that, so far as extensions arc concerned, or so far as any new generating stations are concerned, and wayleaves across dock avid railway property, they should come within the Bill. The exclusion of the railways and docks, then fore, must only attach to the existing generating stations. From the point of view of the railways and docks, that was a matter of considerable importance; and from the point of view of the unified control of electricity in this country, with the exception of, perhaps, one Metropolitan station, the exclusion is not a matter of substantial im-
portance, having regard to a subsequent Amendment, which I shall ask the House to accept, dealing with certain rights of the railway companies, when they are taking electricity from a district electricity board, or dealing with the rights of the railway companies to demand any frequency that they like.
Subject to that I am satisfied, and those who advise me are satisfied, that the arrangement we made with the railway companies is a perfectly sound and proper one it is a matter of great importance the railway companies, and it does not interfere with the unified control. Having regard to the powers that are kept which give us entire control of any new generating station or any extensions of the same and of wayleaves over the railway and dock property, we feel we can with safety leave this matter without troubling the railway companies to enter into any further discussion of the matter, and I ask the House to allow the arrangement to stand as it is, and permit mo to withdraw this Amendment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Gould the right hon. Gentleman indicate to the House the reasons why he put the Amendment down in the first place?

4.0 P.M.

Mr. SHORTT: I tried to explain to the House on Thursday. There were a large number of cases in Committee upstairs where I had promised to see what Amendments we could put down on the Report stage. When we were going through the Bill for that purpose, and also for the purpose, of seeing if there were anything that required alteration, or clearing up, or securing, or anything of that sort, we were not quite sure whether tile exclusion of all existing railway generating stations might not have an effect which we had not anticipated. After full consideration, we have come to the conclusion that while to a certain extent that was right, because we shall ask the House to make an alteration in Clause 9 dealing with their power to require a certain frequency, we retain entire control over any future power stations belonging to the railways or docks, or any extensions, or any use of their property for purposes of wayleave. Therefore, after consideration, our doubt as to whether we had sufficient security has been removed.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The whole House understands why this Amendment
is withdrawn. It is because the Home Secretary came to an arrangement with the railway companies in June last that these railway and generating stations should not be taken over by the district electricity boards. I can perfectly well realise that that arrangement binds the Home Secretary, and that he is bound, having made a mistake in putting this Amendment down, to withdraw it after having had that arrangement brought to his notice, but he will be the first to admit that any arrangement come to between him and the railway directors does not bind the rest of the House, and every single one of the arguments which made it seem vital to him that this Amendment should be put down reversing the decision come to in Committee upstairs is as important still to the public in general and this House as it was before he withdrew his Amendment. It is perfectly obvious, even to those who are not experts, that a district electricity board that has not the power of taking over railway and dock generating stations is robbed of its principal functions. It is deprived of the two principal matters of supplying electricity, The only electricity generating stations or the main electricity generating stations that will be taken over will be the municipal undertakings. I think they might justly claim to have the same privileges as are accorded to the dock and railway companies in this matter, if it is au advantage to be left out of the district electricity board, then they, too, have a right to claim to be left out. We know, how ever, that the economy to be effected in supplying electricity in bulk from these great generating stations is the principal argument in favour of this Bill, and that economy can only be achieved if the various electricity undertakings are under one hand. It you exempt the railways and docks from joining in with the other electricity concerns in order to form a great combine, you will thereby hamper the whole measure so far as the district electricity boards are concerned.
This Bill, originally, made these boards the sole authority for managing and supplying eletricity throughout the country. In Committee upstairs, so far as I can make out, the district electricity board was relegated to the second place and is no longer the normal authority. The normal authority now is a voluntary union of the electricity concerns, a voluntary concern involving private capital, and
leaving the whole of the supply of electricity in the country to the existing private capitalist and municipal concerns. I for one prefer the district electricity board, which eliminates private capital and brings the whole of the electrical supply of the country under Government hands. I understand that has been ruled out. The district board is now only the second string to the bow; it is not the normal, but the unusual. Let us, however, save what we can of the district electricity board. I do not think it will be found practicable to go on under these capitalist and municipal combines that are contemplated. We shall have to come back to the district electricity boards, but you are hampering them by cutting out all power over railway and dock generating stations. You are depriving the new authority which is to supply electricity to the whole of the country of the power of acquiring compulsorily railway and dock generating stations. We know what that means. They will have to acquire them voluntarily, and that is why the railway and dock directors have induced the Home Secretary to withdraw this Amendment. He put the Amendment down solely to preserve the right of the district electricity boards to acquire these stations compulsorily under the terms stated later in the Clause. He has withdrawn it on pressure from the railway directors and because he made a bargain with them some months ago.
It is, however, still our duty as representing the public to see that the district electricity boards are given the best possible chance. We shall get these boards, and they will have to take over the railway and dock generating stations. They will have to do it, because it will be impossible to have different sorts of electricity supplies with different voltages working at different places. You must have your big generating stations supplying all these things in future. The result will be that the big thing will come and public capital will have to be found for constructing the big schemes. You will then find the dock and railway companies coming forward and spying, "You cannot take us over. We shall require compensation. If you are going to supply this electricity, naturally we shall require to be bought up." Then we shall have all the reasons given why enormous compensation should be paid to these com-
panies. I protest against the. House being forced to accept a bargain which is obviously in the interests of the railway and dock directors, and against our being hoodwinked—I do not mean it in any offensive sense—by the Home Secretary, who has not given us the true reasons why-he put this Amendment on the Paper. He knows perfectly well that the future of the district electricity boards depend upon their power to acquire these concerns, and he has left that acquisition entirely in the hands of the old system of paying compensation through the nose to these private companies. i therefore hope the House will not accept the withdrawal of this Amendment, but will go to a vote. I might add that we from these benches moved an exactly similar Amendment going slightly further by cutting out private generating stations as well. Seeing the Home Secretary's Amendment on the Paper, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Grundy) withdrew his Amendment. That makes it all the more necessary why we should make s- protest, and. if necessary, go to a vote on this question in order to make our cape quite clear. We do not believe in these private undertakings of the dock and railway companies being able to extract abnormal compensation from the public.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: I am quite at a lost to understand why the Home Secretary should now desire to withdraw this Amendment. If I understand this matter rightly, one principal argument has been advanced why the whole of the electricity supply should be brought under the one unified control. The one great argument that has been advanced is that the load factor of the railways should be brought into the general pool of electricity supply of the country. The first tiling that the Home Secretary proposes is to withdraw the railway generating stations from the public control of the boards. If there is one generating station move than another that should be acquired according to the argument advanced by the Home Secretary, it is the railway generating station. We arc bound to leave these words in if the Hume Secretary is to stand by his argument. I should rather like to know to what extent the proceedings, in this House last Thursday have influenced the Home Secretary in withdrawing this Amendment. As the Bill came to this House from the Committee upstairs, the whole of the electricity supply was to be under the Board of Trade. Last Thursday that
was changed on the floor of the House, and it was brought under the control of the Ministry of Transport. If the electricity supply were under the charge of the Board of Trade, I can quite understand that the Transport Department would wish to exclude the railway generating stations, and now that it is brought under the Ministry of Transport perhaps their views have changed. I do urge that these words should be left in and that the railways should have their generating stations taken over in common with other generating stations, BO that the Home Secretary may give support to the argument that he has advanced that the load factor of the railways will materially aid the general supply of the country.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Major BARNES: I beg to move in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "the standard price," and to insert instead thereof the word "compensation."
My object in moving this Amendment is to endeavour to bring the compulsory compensation proposals embodied in this Bill into some degree of simplicity and fairness. At present they are of the most complicated character. This is a Bill for the compulsory acquisition of a certain kind of property. It involves taking that property and transferring it from one group of persons to another group. Obviously, that raises the question of com pensation. I am quite sure that it is the wish of the House that questions of compensation should be dealt with fairly and equitably, without any consideration as to the persons or companies or organisations that arc involved. The Government have approached this matter, I do not suggest with any desire to work injustice, but with a desire to get these properties as cheaply as they can. That, of course, is a perfectly laudable object. Everybody wants to get things cheaply, and there is no reason why one should not do so if one can do it fairly. What is the course that they have pursued here? First, they have divided the properties they proposed to take into two parts. They desire to acquire control on the electrical undertakings of this country. These undertakings can be divided into generating and distributing portions. They originally started out with the idea of taking only the generating portions. This was a Bill to acquire, by compulsion if necessary, the generating stations in the country, but it has been transformed
from a measure of compulsion applied by the Government to a measure of compulsion applied to the Government, and the Government may be compelled to acquire portions of electrical undertakings which they had not intended to take. They may be compelled to acquire the distributing systems of various companies.
How have they applied the principle of compensation to that purpose? They have first taken into consideration the various undertakings, and have ruled out one set of undertakers entirely as regards compulsory powers. You cannot apply compulsory powers to generating stations belonging to railway companies or dock companies or to private stations. They can only be acquired by agreement. Those that remain they have divided into three categories—first, the generating stations that belong to local authorities; secondly, those belonging to companies acting under Provisional Orders and having the benefits of the Electric Lighting Act of 1888; and, lastly, the generating stations of power companies. These are the three classes into which they have divided the objects which they desire to acquire. As far as the actual objects themselves are concerned, there is no difference between them. They arc, all generating stations. It is as if one went into a street where there are three houses exactly alike and divided them into three classes because of the difference in their ownership. I submit that that is not in any sense of the word a proper principle to be applied in the determination of compensation. But that is what has been done under this Bill. Different methods of compensation are to be applied in the acquisition of properties with precisely similar objects, and the difference doss not depend on the difference in the objects, but on the difference in their ownership.
Take first the generating stations belonging to local authorities. The Government proposed originally to acquire these by paying to the local authorities an amount equal to their outstanding liabilities, in other words, if it had been private property with a mortgage on it, they would have proposed to pay the mortgage oil But the Government have in Committee accepted an alternative. When they come to the generating stations belonging to companies acting under Provisional Orders, they apply another principle of compensation. They propose to com-
pensate these companies for the loss of their property by giving them their original cost less depreciation.

Sir E. CARSON: What is the standard price?

Major BARNES: "Standard price" when applied to local authorities means outstanding liabilities, but when it is applied to companies acting under Provisional Orders it means their capital cost. When you come to the last class of generating stations, those belonging to power companies, they are to be paid their market value as a going concern, and any difference is to be settled under the Arbitration Act of 1889. What I desire to do is to substitute for these different principles, which to my mind cannot be justified on any ground of equity or fairness, a common principle of compensation to be applied to all properties quite irrespective of their ownership, and if my various Amendments are accepted the effect will be that, in the first place, the Government will proceed to acquire these properties by agreement, and, if they cannot get agreement, they will proceed to acquire them under the terms of the Acquisition of Land Compensation Act which has been passed in this House during this Session. I put this to the House as a proposal which is fair to be applied in all these cases. We arc dealing here with the question of acquiring property, it may be by compulsion. We had the whole of this question discussed in this House in the early part of the Session in connection with the Act for the Acquisition of Land, and paying compensation for taking it by compulsion. I suggest there is no reason why this particular class of property should be singled out for differential treatment from any other kind of property that may be acquired under the provisions for the Acquisition of Laud Act. Although it is called the Acquisition of Land Act I think the Home Secretary will confirm me when I say that land has; very much wider meaning than merely soil, and may mean the buildings on the land and the plant attached to the freehold, so that it might very well be that certain properties of exactly the same character will be acquired under this Act as might be if they were going to be acquired by local authorities carrying out-improvement schemes or by Government Departments who want land for other purposes, and which would be acquired
under the Acquisition of Land Compensation Act. There does not seem any reason at all why if we are going to apply compulsory powers under this Bill for the acquisition of property it should not come under the provisions of the Land Act. One objection has been raised, and that is that if the provisions of that Act were applied the effect would be that in many cases persons, companies or local authorities would get not the pre-war value of the undertakings but the post-war value, and it is felt in many quarters that that is not right or fair, as the effect would be to burden the electrical undertakings unduly and to put into the pockets of the people now owning the property a value which they ought not to have. There is no one in this House who is a stronger supporter of the idea of acquiring the difference between pre- and post-war values for the benefit of the general community. But if that policy is to be adopted, as I hope it will be—I, at any rate, shall support it—I think it should be applied generally. It does not seem to mo that this is the right way in which to acquire this difference. If the general principle is to be laid down that the increase of the pre-war value is to be taken it should be done in some general fiscal measure and not by a Bill of this kind.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I beg to second the Amendent, which raises an exceedingly important question—one of the most important in connection with the whole discussion on this Bill, and one of the questions to which we gave the most attention during our prolonged deliberations upstairs. I desire to second this Amendment because I entirely approve of the principle it contains, and also for another reason which I hope will commend itself to the favourable consideration of the Government. If this Amendment is accepted I shall be able to relieve the House from the necessity of considering a number of those subsequent Amendments which stand in my name, and, therefore, apart from the merits of the Amendment, I hope it will be acceptable to, and accepted by, the Government. What is the position in regard to this Amendment? Many years ago this House was engaged in discussing the desirability of promoting the electrical industry in this country, in the year 1882 a Bill was passed with that object. But what was the result of that Act? Practically nothing at all was accomplished under it, because the terms offered to the investing public were not sufficiently good
to induce them to embark their capital in what was then regarded as a highly speculative enterprise. Six years passed, and the House in 1888 passed an amending Bill offering better terms to the investing public, I hope I may be allowed to remind the House what terms were, under the Act of 1888, offered to investors. The necessity of realising this very clearly at the outset will, I dunk, be apparent. Under Section (2) it is laid down:
Where any undertakers are authorised by a Provisional Order or special Act to supply electricity within any area, any local authority with in whose jurisdiction such area or any part thereof is situated may within six months after the expiration of a period of forty-two years or such shorter period as is specified in that behalf in the Provisional Order or in the special Act from the date of the passing of the Act confirming such Provisional Order or of such special Act, and within six months after the expiration of every subsequent period of ten years, or such shorter period as is specified in that behalf in the Provisional Order or in the special Act, by notice in writing require such under takers to sell—
That is precisely what this Act is proposing to do—
and thereupon such undertakers shall sell to them their undertaking or so much of the same as is within such jurisdiction upon terms of paying the then value of all lands, buildings, works, materials, and; plant of such undertakers suitable to and used by them for the purposes of their undertaking within such jurisdiction, such value to be in case of difference determined by arbitration: Provided that the value of such lands, buildings, works, materials and plant shall be deemed to be their fair market value at the time of the purchase, due regard being had to the nature and the condition of such buildings, works, materials and plant, and to the state of repair thereof, and to the circumstances that they are in such a position as to be ready for immediate working and to the suitability of the same to the purposes of the undertaking, and where a part only of the undertaking is purchased to any loss occasioned by severance.
So far as the Clause we are discussing is concerned, those words are applicable, because under this Clause only the generating stations are to be acquired. It is true that under a subsequent Clause other things are going to be done, but for the moment—

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: The main transmission lines are also to be acquired.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I ought to have said that the generating stations and main transmission lines are to be acquired. Therefore, we have arrived at the position that the circumstances which were contemplated in the Act of 1888 have now arisen, that is to say, those who, on the faith of that Act, invested their money in electricity undertakings, are now called
upon to part with those undertakings or some portion of them, namely, the generating stations and main transmission lines, under this Clause. The question which immediately arises is precisely the question which has been proposed to the House by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle East (Major Barnes). On what terms are you going to take over these generating stations and main transmission lines? On that question there was a great deal of controversy and discussion upstairs, and the Bill as it returned to this House from Committee is not in my view, or in the view of a large number of members of that Committee, at all in a satisfactory condition, for the reason—I do not want to use any hard words—that the terms upon which the money of the public was invested on the faith of the Act of 1888—this I must say quite plainly and quite deliberately—are not being observed in the Bill as it is now presented to the House. Therefore, the question is more than a mere question— although that is a very important one— of the future development of the electricity undertakings of this country. That is a very important question. We are all agreed that we want a more abundant supply of electricity. We are all agreed that we want that electricity at a cheaper price. I believe that on those two points there is no difference of opinion in any quarter of the House, nor was there any difference of opinion in any quarter of the Committee which considered the Bill upstairs. But we are also very much concerned with another and more general principle, which is whether when the time comes for taking over private enterprises by public authorities, Parliament shall or shall not observe the bargain which it most deliberately made in the recent past. It made that bargain in a very special sense deliberately, for observe what happened. Parliament legislated in 1862 and offered certain terms, but the public would not come in. You could not get your money, and not being able to get your money under the terms of the Act of 1882, Parliament, wisely or unwisely, but most deliberately, said that in order to induce the private investor to embark his money on what was then regarded as a highly speculative enterprise, "We will deliberately improve the terms which we offer," and those improved terms were embodied in the Act of 1888.
The Parliamentary bargain made La 1888 was virtually this: to give a life of
forty-two years, with a liability to be purchased at the end of that period, or at the end of a fixed period of years on the then value of the buildings, plant, machinery, etc. Now, what is the proposal which the Government has embodied in this Bill? Firstly, I would ask the House to observe that it is the Government, or the country which they represent, which is now attempting to take over these electricity undertakings. It is not the companies who are asking to be bought out. It is the Government which has decided in its wisdom that this is the appropriate moment to take over the electricity supply of the companies. It is the Government's decision; they have deliberately arrived at it. But they have also arrived at the decision that they will not take over these undertakings on the terms embodied in the Act of 1888, and I would contend hi the strongest possible way that it is to those terms that the undertakers are properly entitled. Instead of on the terms embodied in the Act of 1888, the Government are proposing to take over the generating stations and main transmission lines on the terms of Sub-section (2) of this Clause. What are those terms? They are merely cost of construction, less depreciation—a vastly different thing from the then value of the buildings, plant, machinery, etc.

Sir E. CARSON: Cost of construction when?

Mr. MARRIOTT: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend for his interruption, for it makes the point clearer. It is the original cost of construction, less depreciation, which may or may not have followed in the years which have intervened. There is another point to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle East made some allusion. It is that the Government, for some reason best known to themselves—I am not concerned with it; there maybe so me very good reason—are differentiating between different classes of undertakers. There are three classes of undertakers—the local authorities, the Provisional Order companies, as they are known, and what are known as the power companies. As to the local authorities, the Government propose to indemnify them against their outstanding liabilities for interest and sinking fund is respect of the loans which they have raised, with an alternative to pay them—
these are the terms of the Bill as it has reached the House from the Standing Committee—
the cost of and incidental to the construction of the generating station or main transmission line and the acquisition of the site thereof, less depreciation,
with a farther sum in case a substantial part of the cost has been defrayed otherwise than by means of loans, or in exceptional cases where the calculation would work injustice, the case is then to be determined by the Electricity Commissioners. That is what is proposed to be done in regard to the local authorities. Next, see how the Provisional Order companies are to be treated. In their case the undertakers are only to get a sum—
as may be certified by an auditor… appointed by the Electricity Commissioners—
that is to say, by the purchasers—
to have been the cost of the lands, buildings, works, materials, and plant suitable to and in actual use by the company, or person for the purposes of their unde[...]king … together with the amount of the expenses incurred as and incidental to the construction of the generating station or their transmission line, and the acquisition of the site thereof, less depreciation, but with the addition of a sum as compensation for any damage…due to the severance.
I ask the House to observe, that there is to be an addition for damage due to severance. That item, however, is qualified by a reference to Sub-section (5), under which electricity is to be supplied on certain terms to the undertakers whose generating station has been purchased. The supposed allowance for severance is, there, fore, illusory, and means little or nothing in addition to the purchase price. It is also provided that the expenses incurred and the amount of depreciation is to be determined
in accordance with regulations made by the Electricity Commissioners.
That is, again, by the purchasers. A further appeal is to be admitted if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that that result works injustice. In supporting the Amendment, I contend for two main points: First, that there should not be this glaring difference of treatment as between the different classes of undertakers, but that tie same principle should be applied to all; and, secondly, that that principle should be in itself a fair and reasonably principle, and as nearly as possible in accord with the deliberate bargain which is embodied in the Act of 1888. This is very much more than a mere question of how the country
is to obtain a larger and cheaper supply of electricity. It really raises the whole question of the good faith of Parliament, and it is for that reason that I desire that this Amendment should be pressed.

Mr. SHORTT: Apparently tins Amendment is moved and seconded on two entirely different grounds, the second of which—that of the Seconder—is, at the most, only a very small portion of those motives which, apparently, actuated the Mover. If this Amendment be accepted, it would of necessity involve a recasting of a very large portion of this Bill. It could not be embodied without doing that. [HoN. MEMBERS: "No!"] Hon. Members are entitled to their opinion, and I am entitled to mine. With regard to the position generally, certainly the Seconder of the Amendment appears to be under an entire misapprehension. Ho says that the position contemplated by the Act of 1888, namely, the period of time when the local authorities are to take over the supply of electricity, has arisen. It is no such thing. This Bill does not take over the supply of electricity unless any particular undertaker requires it. This Bill does nothing more than to secure for the public such a control of electricity as will ensure against waste and will ensure as cheap and efficient a supply as is possible. There is no question of taking over the supply unless the authorities desire it.

Mr. MARRIOTT: This Amendment refers only to the generating stations.

Mr. SHORTT: And it is for that very reason that I said this Amendment is argued under an entire misapprehension. There are three different kinds of undertakings with which we are concerned. There are the local authorities, who are no parties to the bargain of 1888. They are not purchasable. There are the power companies. They are not purchaseable under the Act of 1888. The distribution companies, the purchaseable companies known as the Provisional Order companies, are the third class. With regard to that class, as with regard to the others, there is no position at all comparable to that which was contemplated by the Act of 1888. The Act of 1888 contemplates the taking over of undertakings for the purposes of supply, the intention being that the supply of electricity would be taken away from private enterprise and taken over by the local authorities. That has not arisen at all. One of the main principles on which the Bill is founded is that
as full use as possible should be made of private money and private enterprise. Provision is made in the Bill that where a generating station vests in a local authority, district board, or joint authority, the district board not only buys the station and pays for it, but is bound to provide the supplying company with the same amount of electricity at as cheap a price as it could have supplied it itself. So it is not a case of the distributing company's undertaking being taken over. It is not a case of the local authorities' undertaking being taken over. They have taken over that portion of it which supplies them with that which they sold, and, after all, the profits of the distributing company are maintained in the distribution.

Mr. MARRIOTT: That is the question.

Mr. SHORTT: Assuming that they get the electricity as cheaply from one source as from the other, the profits are maintained.

Major BARNES: I have an Amendment down later, consequential to this, to leave out that Sub-section.

Mr. SHORTT: Very likely, but I sincerely trust that the House will not accept that Amendment any more than this. At any rate, I am entitled to argue this Amendment on the supposition that that Sub-section will remain.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: Can the right hon. Gentleman show me anywhere in the Bill where the whole supply of electricity will be given at the price at which it can be generated by the company?

Mr. SHORTT: The whole supply which they supply out of their existing stations which are taken, or anything which they have in contemplation and are about to carry out. For the future there can be no extension for construction except with the consent of the Electricity Commissioners.

Mr. BALFOUR: An electricity undertaking may have spent large sums of money on its distribution service looking to the future, when it would have a very big generating station, and it is only going to receive the quantity of electricity which it is able to generate in a very small generating station, and it may have to pay an unlimited price for the balance of its electricity under the Bill.

Mr. SHORTT: That has nothing whatever to do with this Clause, because the
Bill proposes that with regard to every class of contributor and every class of person who supplies electricity any future construction or extension can only be with the consent and on the conditions of the Electricity Commissioners, and the price that is paid for the generating stations now is not affected in the least by that provision. Moreover, if there is something which they are contemplating and preparing for, they get the benefit of that under the Bill. That is a very material difference.

Sir E. CARSON: Is it not a fact that ii a large expenditure has been made for distribution in view of an increase of generation in the future, by taking over the generating power, the expenditure on the increased distribution is lost, and is that provided for in the Bill?

Mr. SHORTT: It is provided for in this way, that where an undertaker sees that he will not be left in a good financial position he can insist upon being taken over upon totally different terms.

Sir F. BANBURY: Is that on the terms of the Act of 1883?

Mr. SHORTT: No. If they come to the conclusion that they are prejudiced, they can insist upon the whole concern being taken over, and if they come to the conclusion that they probably will be able to get the whole supply cheaper than they could have got it otherwise, they will hold on and take their profits. But this is not a question of taking over under the Act of 1888 at all. No such situation has arisen. No breach whatever of that Parliamentary bargain is contained in this Clause. It is only taking over the portion by which they supply themselves with a commodity which they intend to sell, and provision is made for supplying them with it as fully and cheaply as they could do themselves. It really is inaccurate to describe that as any such state of circumstances as was contemplated by the Act of 1888. With regard to the general Amendment, that it should be under the Clauses of the Land Acquisition Act, it is quite impossible that that should be accepted, ft is perfectly clear, in the circumstances in which this Bill is brought in, that you cannot treat all three classes of electricity undertakings alike. It would be most unfair to the power companies, which have no termination to their period of existence, to treat them on the same footing as
the purchasable distributing companies. The purchasable companies know that at the end of a certain period they are liable to be taken over. The power companies know perfectly well that they are not. Therefore, we are bound in taking over their whole undertaking to make very different terms from those of a purchasable company, and that is why, in the terms which are afterwards provided, they would be taken over as a going concern. Equally, the local authorities, who are not profit-making companies, who have not invested money for purposes of profit, can be put into the position of distributing other people's instead of their own generated electricity without the necessity of giving them the term which a company originally composed of persons who intended to make a profit, ought to get. You cannot treat them all alike, and if the Amendment were passed it would mean that you would have to treat them all alike. You would have to recast the whole Bill, and you would have to do away entirely with Sub-section (5) which provides for giving the undertakers electricity as cheaply and efficiently as they could have got it. The hon. Member (Mr. Marriott) said we wanted a fair and reasonable principle. I am satisfied that we have got it, and I believe the large majority of those who speak on behalf of the purchasable companies are satisfied that it is as near as you can get to fairness and equity m a complicated matter of this description. Therefore I ask the House not to accept the Amendment, which is not moved or seconded by anyone who has any real personal connection with the industry. I know the House will listen with great care to an Amendment moved by lion. Members who have given as much attention to the subject as they have, but in spite of that I ask the House to realise what the position is and therefore to reject the Amendment.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: It seems to be a grievance on the part of the Home Secretary that this Amendment is not moved or seconded by anyone having a direct interest in the electrical industry. In supporting the Amendment I shall not be held guilty of that. I wish to put forward an additional and in my view a very much stronger reason than has yet been urged why this Clause should be very substantially amended, namely, to save the State from undesirable purchases under Clauses 12 and 13. The Bill was
first presented with the intention of setting up district boards so as to control the central generating stations, so that the State should be able to control the main supply of electricity. But at that time there was nothing contemplated as to the ownership of the distribution services. This has crept in solely owing to a great dispute in Committee as to the fair method of acquiring generating stations, and Clauses 12 and 13 ultimately had added to them provisions so as to compensate for any injustice which might be put upon the undertakers under the unfair provisions of purchase under Clause 7. It is in the interests of the country that the provisions under Clause 7 should be made absolutely fair and equitable so that the State when it purchases the generating stations will not be faced with a large number of undertakers all over the country coming forward and saying, "You have taken my generating station under Clause 7. The terms of purchase are such that I cannot face my shareholders, or my ratepayers in the case of local authorities, and therefore I must ask you under Clause 12 or 13, as the case may be, to come and purchase my undertaking outright, and to relieve me of the loss I should suffer if you purchased my generating station only." I am sure the country at large will regret for all time if they force people, in order to protect themselves against an injustice under Clause 7, to purchase the whole of the distribution services. That would mean that the State would be responsible, in the large towns and cities and urban Areas, for a huge organisation in carrying out all the small details of this provision, and I am sure we have sufficient experience of the great difficulty of running a concisely organised public Department without converting the whole electricity supply of the country into a huge State controlled concern. I support the views of my hon. and gallant Friend, although I do not think this is the most desirable way of giving effect to what he desires. There is a much larger issue involved which means letting the State get control of the central generating stations, under which they are compelled to take over the minor municipal services of the country. For these, reasons I support the Amendment.

Mr. NEAL: With some of the sentiments which have been expressed by the hon. and gallant Member who moved this Amendment and the hon. Member
who seconded it hon. Members will find themselves in complete agreement, it is unthinkable that this House should desire to break faith with any persons who have invested money upon the strength of the Statute. It is quite true that the Act of 1888 was passed expressly for the purpose of stimulating the advance of private enterprise in electricity, which was not being sufficiently developed under the Act of 1882. Therefore, it becomes necessary for us to carefully consider whether there is any foundation for the charge which is being made that there is some breach of that Parliamentary bargain or of that inducement to the public. Those who affirm that, do so because of an incomplete appreciation of the precise state of affairs. What does this Statute that we are now considering desire to do? It desires to establish a more complete system of electricity by popularly constituted bodies, controlled centrally by commissioners. It desires to do that in order that greater facilities may be given and electricity may be supplied in greater quantities and more generally and more cheaply. We should buy cheapness too dear if we were to break faith. So far we are agreed. Are we breaking faith? What is the position as propounded by those of us who think that the Bill has now reached the balance of fairness and equity? The first thing to be considered is whether the Board should be set up at all. In each locality the parties concerned, the companies and the municipalities, arid everyone else, will have their chance of entering into a friendly partnership in which there will be no vesting of property, no taking over, no acquiring of the generating stations or of the main transmission line. If it is found impracticable to come to that arrangement, then there arises the statutory bargain, not a strict expropriation of property. It would be more accurate to say that the property is brought into the partnership. It is in one sense expropriation pro tanto, but not complete That is to say, people whose property is being taken into the partnership still have their definite rights. One of the lights secured is that they are to be supplied under the district electricity board with as large a quantity of electricity as they can produce from their present station or any which they had in reasonable contemplation. They are treated preferentially to that extent. Another right is, that they may maintain the whole of their distributing system. It is obvious,
perfectly axiomatic, that no one makes a profit out of manufacture, per se. To go on manufacturing and storing is simply to accumulate stock which is consuming capital and not producing revenue. It is only when you turn your manufacturers' goods into marketable commodities and realise them that you begin to get your profits, and each one of these undertakers, municipal or company, are to be given all their rights of distribution and all their rights, therefore, of making profits. No one in this House is more pleased than the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) to think that the companies in which he is interested will be relieved by this Bill of the necessity of financing themselves in this very troubled period

Mr. BALFOUR: I must interrupt the hon. Member when he endeavours to interpret my views in the matter. I only want the undertaker to be left in possession of his generating station or supplied with all his electricity. The undertaker would prefer all his electricity from his own station.

Mr. NEAL: Then I withdraw my remarks referring to my hon. Friend and make them perfectly impersonal, and say that the ordinary business man will be delighted to be relieved from the intense difficulty of raising capital, which is almost impossible, and buying machinery and plant which is unobtainable, to extend his business, and to hand over these difficulties to someone else to deal with, whilehegets a guaranteed supply of the commodity which he has to sell equal to anything which he can produce himself,

Mr. BALFOUR: But not at the same price.

Mr. NEAL: At the price at which he is able to establish he could have produced it himself. Not at to-day's price, of course, but at the price—it is in black and white in the Bill—at which he can produce it 'himself He is going to have the whole of his supply, present and contemplated, guaranteed to him on terms no worse than he could produce it himself. That is in the Bill. My hon. Friend disagrees, but it is very plain in the Bill. What is being taken from him? There is going to be taken from him his generating station and his main transmission line, but the whole of the revenue side of his account is untouched. The whole of the money he would receive for
the sale of electricity without this Bill will come into his revenue and appear on his trading accounts. The only thing that disappears from his business is the manufacturing side of the business, in which he becomes not the sole proprietor, but a partner. Where the grievance is I do not understand. This view is countered by saying, "Look at the Act of 1888." If ever there was a case to which there was a complete misuse of a statute it is this one, and I very much doubt if any hon. and learned Member who belongs to my profession would read the Statute, of 1888 in the sense in which it has been interpreted up to now in this Mouse. The Act of 1888 was a restrictive Act upon the companies. The companies, all credit to them, had set up supplying electricity as pioneers. In the 1882 Act they had a term of twenty-one years given to them in which to carry on. They said, "We find that term is too short. We cannot carry on. You are strangling enterprise by limiting us to twenty-one years. Make it forty-two years. Give us a guarantee that you will not take hold of us under forty-two years; not a guarantee that you will buy us up at the end of forty-two years, and we are content to be under the obligation to be bought up fit the end of forty-two years. If you do buy us up at the end of forty-two years, the terms upon which you will acquire us are set down in the Statute. You will acquire us without paying for any goodwill. We know that. Hut if your districts do not coincide with our districts, and you have to take part of our undertakings—geographically, because that is clearly the meaning of the Section—and not the whole of our districts, then in that case you will pay us for the part which you take, with damages for severance." That was the obligation put upon the company. It is now sought to be brought into play as if it were something put into the Statute for the benefit of the company. It was notning of the kind. That was a Statute to take over the whole of their undertakings, including their sources of revenue. This Bill does nothing of the kind.
I have tried to make it plain that this Bill leaves the sources of revenue absolutely untouched, and there is no ground at all for craving in aid the 1888 Act as if that had any relationship to the circumstances which have arisen now. These arguments were put before the Committee, and. after Clause 7 was passed in its present form, it seemed from the communications which
came to us to appeal to the persons interested as being fair and reasonable. Certainly there was no complaint from the municipalities, for whom I am entitled to speak with some little authority, and there was no complaint which was audible at the time from the companies. What they did say was this: "It is true that we are allowed to keep our distributing portion, and we shall have a chance of making a profit; but perhaps we shall not be allowed to keep our distribution. Perhaps we shall find under a new state of things that we had better go out of business altogether, and we want you to give an undertaking in this Bill that if a company finds it desirable to go out of business, you will buy up the rest of its undertaking." A totally different consideration comes into play then. If you are going to put these companies out of existence you must guarantee to them, in order to keep faith with them, favourable terms when they go out of existence. These terms are embodied in Clauses 12 and 13 of the Bill, and they are not less favourable than the terms of the 1888 Act, but more favourable. The true time to discuss these terms in detail will be when we come to those Clauses, and it would be trespassing on the time of the House if I were to deal with them now. They seek to apply, and I hope successfully, a new mode of assessing the sum to be paid to the company which shall give them terms more favourable than the 1888 Act. Further than that I do not propose to say anythingnowaboutClausesl2and 13. I do trust that we have heard the last of the suggestion that the Government, or the members of the Committee which devoted a great deal of care to this Bill upstairs, would willingly be parties to a breach of any bargain with the public or of any inducement held out to the public to invest its money. The main object of this Act must be the supply of cheap and abundant electricity. These very companies and municipalities are the persons who will benefit under this Section if this object is attained, but if that object is made impossible by putting upon the boards, before they come into existence, a burden which they cannot bear, the companies and the municipalities would be the first to suffer. The effect of this Amendment on the electricity companies would be to give statutory sanction to profiteering of the worst possible kind. The public would be bound to take over these stations and plant, not at what they cost, but at present-day value, possibly throe times
what they cost. In other words, we should be asked to put an incubus upon the development of electricity to give this profit to these companies. I do not think that in their better moments hon. Members would ask us to do that, and I am quite sure that that was not their object in moving this Amendment.

Mr. McNEILL: I rather regret that the interesting speech of the hon. Member was brought to an end by the use of that overwrought word "profiteering." The Home Secretary will think that I have no right to form or to express an opinion upon this Bill because I have absolutely no personal interest in these electrical businesses.

Mr. SHORTT: That should fit you to express an opinion.

Mr. McNEILL: I heard my right hon. Friend express the new Parliamentary doctrine that unless there was partiality on the part of hon. Members addressing this House they spoke without weight.

Mr. SHORTT: It was the very opposite.

Mr. McNEILL: Like many others, I am handicapped by the fact that I was not on the Grand Committee which considered this Bill and had not the advantage of hearing the detailed discussions that took place, and I can only approach the consideration of this matter by reading the Bill and listening to the speeches delivered in support of those Amendments and by the Government against them. On looking at this Amendment I am bound to say that I thought that on the whole it was a fair one which I should support, but I was a great deal impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford, and I listened with interest to see how that speech I was dealt with by the representative of the Government, but I have come to the conclusion that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the hon. Gentleman opposite has succeeded in showing that this Bill as it stands would riot be a very serious breach of faith. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Neal), in a very learned discourse, has endeavoured to show us that the Act of 1888 really does not concern us and that, this Bill does not upset what was done at that time; but this point appeared to me to be left out of account, both by the Home Secretary and the hon. Member. The Act of 1888 gave a period of forty-two years of uninterrupted enterprise. I agree with the hon. Member that municipalities have not anything to complain of,
but it is quite different with regard to companies. The capital was attracted to these companies by the assurance by Parliament that they would have forty-two years of uninterrupted development and would not be taken over by any public authority until the end of that period, and then would be taken over only on certain terms. The right hon. Gentleman said this is not taking them over. It is only supplying them with the raw material.
The hon. Gentleman opposite corroborated that argument and attempted to show that the revenue side of these companies would not be affected, but his argument was unsound on that point for this reason. These companies, during the forty-two years, were given the opportunity of any amount of development. It was not a fixed amount of electricity supply that they were to give when the Act was passed; it contemplated uninterrupted and unlimited development for the whole forty-two years. Now they are taking over the obligation to supply them with their raw material, and to give them as good and as cheap a supply as they require at the present moment. They do not take into account the very much larger supply which those companies might be re-acquiring ten or fifteen years hence if the original bargain of 1888 was maintained, and they were allowed that unlimited development. Consequently, I think that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman have quite failed to show that these companies will not be unfairly dealt with, and that there will not be a very serious breach of faith with them if this Bill becomes law in its present form. Therefore, I think for the reasons given by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford it is incumbent upon this Parliament to have regard to what was done by its predecessors. Otherwise a very serious blow would be struck at good faith in Parliamentary legislation on which public credit depends. Public credit is not merely cencerned with Government funds. It is the confidence which the investigating public has that when Parliament, in its wisdom, adopts a certain policy, that policy will be consistently carried out, and if by passing the Bill in its present form notice were given to the investing public that when legislation is passed laying down certain principles upon which capital is invited it is liable to be changed by a later Parliament which may think something else is better, and may pay no regard to the limitations laid down in the earlier
Act, then that would be a very bad thing for the public credit of this country. If the hon. Gentleman goes into the Lobby in support of this Amendment I will support him.

Sir W. PEARCE: I would ask the Home Secretary does he not think that maintaining his point of view as to the standard price will tend towards the eventual purchase of the whole undertaking of the companies by the State? If the standard price is adopted it does seem on the face of it very hard that nothing is allowed for appreciation, because in these times there is an enormous amount of appreciation on every electrical plant in the country, and if a company having to submit to the Government terms finds itself in what it considers a hard position, I think that there will be an attempt under Clauses 12 and 13 to try to get back from the Government on the sale of the whole undertaking what it had lost under Clause 7. I am afraid that these Clauses, and the Bill itself may lead to the whole electrical development of the country being in the hands of the Electricity Commissioners, and eliminating the private companies altogether. I cannot think that that would be a good thing for the country, and I would like the right hon. Gentleman to consider the matter from the point of view of whether the terms of this Clause may not eventually lead to every private owner of these undertakings desiring to get rid of his whole undertaking, so that everything would be worked by the Electricity Commissioners.

Sir F. BANBURY: Like my hon. Friend (Mr. McNeill) I have no interest, and I have never been interested, in any electrical companies. Neither had I the good fortune to be a member of the Committee, but I remember well what took place in 1882 and 1888. In 1882 the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain introduced a meaure providing that at a certain date the electricity companies should revert to the municipalities. At that time there was an idea widely prevalent in the country that municipalities could do most things very cheaply, and there was a very marked tendency among municipalities to acquire certain undertakings—gas and water undertakings, and others of a similar character. Electricity was, however, supposed to be a rather speculative undertaking and the municipalities preferred that private enterprise should start it. At that time tramways were
being taken over by the municipalities. They were taken over very cheaply, at the price of old iron, but many of the investing public and the shareholders in the tramways were not aware of this and were very startled when they found that their property was taken away from them at a very small price and, as a result, with a considerable loss of money. The consequence was the investing public refused to have anything to do with electrical undertakings. That went on for six years, until 1888, when electricity had developed further and it became essential that something should be done, the Act of 1888 was passed. I remember it perfectly well; I was in business in the City at the time. The people investing in electricity companies were told they were going to get a clear run for forty-two years and that at the end of that time there was an option, not in favour of the companies, as the hon. Gentleman opposite said, but in favour of the municipalities or of the Government to buy if they chose on certain terms. It never was contemplated that before the last of the forty-two years the Government would come in and take part of the undertaking. I think that the Home Secretary admits that, and the hon. Gentleman certainly did admit it, but he says that they are not damnified because they are going to receive as cheaply as they can get at the present moment the electricity, not the electricity which they may get during the next ten or fifteen years which have to run before the forty-two years are up, but the electricity they are getting at the present moment. That is, their chance of development taken from them. As far as I understand it, there is nothing in the Bill to provide that if they extend their distributing they should get a further quantity of electricity.

Mr. NEAL: They then get their share in the partnership, of which they are members.

Sir F. BANBURY: There was nothing in the 1888 Act about going into partnership, and this House has no right, having entered into a bargain on the faith of which people invested their money, to come down here, even if it is in the interests of cheapness—I do not believe it is, I believe that the reverse will take place, and that we shall have dearer and worse electricity—this House has no right to say, after that bargain has been made, "We are going to force you into a partnership." Of course, if the companies say
that they are willing to agree to the Bill and are willing to enter into co-partnership, that is a different thing altogether. As far as I know that has not been done, certainly not by the majority of the companies. There is another point, and I am sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here, nor the Prime Minister, nor the Leader of the House, because the point is a very important one. We want to borrow money. It is absolutely essential that we should be able to go to the public, and say, "We want more of your money for the State." We have large loans to raise, certainly a £1,000,000,000 we shall have to raise in a short time. Is it a good thing to let the investor think that because certain portions of the State may get a little advantage you shall break faith with people who have invested their money on a Parliamentary security? Is it not likely that the people will say "No, if you do this thing with companies who have invested their money you will do the same thing with the securities of the State. If you break one bargain you will break another?" I venture to say that as the State is now in need of money nothing could be more fatal than to encourage the idea amongst the investing class that this House is careless of bargains it has entered into.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I think we have heard, in rather exaggerated language, about the breaking of bargains with the investor. My own feeling is that the investor is really getting the better of the bargain and not the country. The interests of the country are the superior interests; they are not the interests of the comparatively few shareholders. A good deal has been said about a loss being made. It seems to me it is rather a profit missed which is suggested.

Sir F. BANBURY: I did not make myself clear. I am not speaking—I have no right to speak—for the companies, in which I am not interested. I do not care whether it is a loss made or a profit missed, but I do know that Parliament entered into a bargain with the shareholders, and that without the consent of the shareholders Parliament has no right to break it.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I do not think the interposition carries us much further. As a matter of fact, the shareholders in these companies are likely to be better off because of the bargain now proposed
with the State. There is going to be a great development of demand for their commodity, and in order that they should supply that commodity what have they to do? They have to acquire sites and machinery and to erect that machinery at a cost two or three times what their present machinery probably cost. It is not a very cheerful prospect for them. It seems to me that the State steps in now with a proposal which is not only advantageous to the general interest of the country, but distinctly advantageous to the shareholder. "Compensation" is the Amendment. What would that mean? It would mean taking over these generating stations, not at the price they cost, less depreciation. That the Committee thought would be a fair proposal, not having in view a sectional interest, but the general interest of the State. The proposal is that there should be "compensation." In other words, these generating stations will be taken over at a price which is perhaps two or three times what they cost. Let the House observe what would be the result of the arrangement on the cost of the electricity which the new authority would have to sell. In every case the price would have to be raised immediately. Surely that would nullify the whole purpose of the Bill. If this Amendment were carried the Bill would not be worth printing. I think the Amendment is one which is directed to ruining the whole proposal. What are the arguments I have listened to for a long period of ten months? They are that you must acquire not only the municipal stations but the company stations at the lowest possible price consistent with justice, and if you give to these companies what their undertakings have cost them, and at the same time undertake to supply them with electricity at least as cheaply as they themselves can generate it, it seems to me that you are giving them an advantage and not a disadvantage, because it is to be assumed that by the union of all sources of supply and of consumption you will, or ought to, supply the whole country at a rate cheaper than the present price.

Mr. R. McNEILL: The hon. Baronet (Sir A. Williamson) says that the proposals of the Bill are for the advantage of the shareholders. If that were so the shareholders would accept the terms of the Bill

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Those individuals who came representing shareholders and those before the Committee over which I presided, had no complaint to make and no proposal to make at this time. This proposal has emerged only in Committee upstairs. No such proposal was put forward to our Committee. It was recognised by practically every witness who came before us that if we really desire to cheapen the price of supply we must not pay too much for the generating plants.

Sir F. HALL: I have heard a good many principles this afternoon, new principles as far as I am concerned. I have learnt from the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Neal) that a, lawyer can read this Clause in a different way from anyone else. I intend to re-read it. An Amendment was brought up in Committee upstairs and it was to insert the words
the then value as ascertained in accordance with the terms of Section 2 of the Electric Lighting Act of 1888, and in the manner that that Act provides, of the lands, buildings, works, materials, plant, etc. The price to be paid, which is subject to arbitration failing agreement, is the then value of the lands, buildings, works, materials and plant, suitable to and used for the purpose of the undertaking.
And it added that "then value" is "to be deemed their fair market value at the time of purchase." I have not the advantage of legal training. I am perhaps one of those unfortunate people brought up to understand the rudiments of business in the City of London, and I say here and now that if we put a clause in a contract on these lines, and when the time came for redeeming the undertaking we were to turn round and say, "Look here, that is the meaning a lawyer can put on it. He can put a different meaning on that phraseology altogether"—I venture to say that if we did that, we should be charged with a complaint with which no business man likes to be charged, and that is the charge of being guilty of very sharp practice at the least. The Member for Elgin and Nairn (Sir A. Williamson) tells us that the shareholders are going to get an advantage by this. I am not here to say whether they are going to get an advantage or disadvantage; all I am here for is to ask the House to maintain the terms of the bargain entered into in 1888. When we were in Committee upstairs my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary (Mr.
Bridgeman) listened to the arguments put forward on the Amendment I have read, and his words were:
Though I am not quite certain that the wording of the Amendment would meet the view of the Government, I am prepared to give, a general undertaking that the Amendment will receive our support.
We ask now that the undertaking given in the Committee Room shall be redeemed on the floor of this House. We have heard a good many arguments with reference to Parliamentary bargains. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Oity of London (Sir F. Banbury) is very likely correct in drawing attention to the fact that large sums of money would be required, and that if Parliament, having entered into an arrangement, now went back on that arrangement, it would very likely be found that the Government's appeal for money would not receive that ready response from the investing public that it has had in the past. We want to co-operate with and to strengthen the hands of those who have placed their money in certain undertakings on an agreement entered into by Parliament. We do not want to come here and say, "Oh, this Clause can be read in a different manner." We want to take the actual meaning as it is understood. The Home Secretary is very astute in bringing forth arguments which suit him. I challenge him here and now to tell me how anyone could be expected to interpret the meaning of this Clause in a different way from that I have suggested. If my right hon. Friend accepts the Amendment, I think there is going to be a very large saving of time on the Report stage. If not, I am afraid we shall have a great many Amendments on this question on the purchase price, because we do not intend, if we can possibly help it, to allow the Government to upset the terms that were entered into thirty-five years ago, and which were considered reasonable at the time for the investing public to receive. Speeches have been made this afternoon on the assumption that the Provisional Order companies

practically said, "Please relieve us of our undertakings," but the position is nothing of the kind. The undertakers are quite prepared to continue their bargain until the expiration of the forty-two years. This is the first time I have seen any Bill to upset an arrangement entered into by our predecessors in the House of Commons, and it is going to be a bad day when we start on such a proceeding. I hope that the Home Secretary will come to the conclusion that the obligations that were entered into should not be upset.

Captain BOWYER: In many of the speeches this afternoon the question as to a breach of a Parliamentary bargain has formed a large part and perhaps the substratum. If we go to a Division I understand that as the Question will be put, the whole principle of standard prices or compensation will be determined, and the compensation to be paid not only to the Provisional Order companies, but to the power companies and municipalities as well. The parties to the 1888 Act were the Provisional Order companies and Parliament. The power companies and the municipalities were not, as the Home Secretary told us, concerned. The only breach of any Parliamentary bargain surely is between Parliament and the Provisional Order companies. Is not the question, therefore, between the Provisional Order companies and Parliament, and should we not in a Division be dividing on a question referring also to the power companies and the municipalities? Perhaps the Home Secretary would say whether or not he would accept the principle of this Amendment as regards the Provisional Order companies, and in the alternative, whether he would be prepared to give them what they claim under the 1888 Act, namely, Section II. terms: that is, the fair market value, and thus keep a Parliamentary bargain.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 204; Noes, 44.

Division No. 135.]
AYES.
[5.50 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Birchall, Major J. D.
Buchanan, Lieut. -Colonel A. L. H.


Allen, Colonel William James
Blades, Sir George R.
Burdon, Col. Rowland


Baird, John Lawrence
Blair, Major Reginald
Burn, T. H. (Belfast)


Barlow, Sir Montagu (Salford, s.)
Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Butcher, Sir J. G.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Borwick, Major G. O.
Cairns, John


Barnstan, Major H.
Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-
Cape, Tom


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Breese, Major C. E.
Carr, W. T.


Bennett, T. J.
Briant, F.
Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)


Bethell, Sir John Henry
Bridgeman, William Clive
Cayzer, Major H. R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm, W.)
Howard, Major S. G.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Hugnes, Spencer Leigh
Rose, Frank H.


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)
Rowlands, James


Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.
Royce, William Stapleton


Cohen, Major J. B. B.
Inskip, T. W. H.
Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)
Irving, Dan
Samuel, Right Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)


craig, Captain Charles C. (Antrim)
Jephcott, A. R.
Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, putney)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jesson, C.
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Jodrell, N. P.
Sassoon, Sir Philip A. G. D.


Dalziel, Sir Davlson (Brixton)
Johnstone, J.
Seddon, James


Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy)
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Seely. Maj.-General Rt. Hon. John


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Shaw, Hon. A. (KiimarnocK)


Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (For[...]ar)


Donald, T.
Kellaway, Frederick George
Short, A. (Wednesbury)


Doyle, N. Grattan
King, Commander Douglas
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)


Edge, Captain William
Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar
Simm. M. T.


Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)
Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Spoor, B. G.


Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)
Lloyd, George Butler
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. (Preston)


Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter
Stewart, Gershom


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Lonsdale, James R.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Eyres-Monsell, Commander- B. M.
Lorden, John William
Sturrock, J. Leng-


Falcon, Captain M.
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Sugden, Lieut. W. H.


Fell, Sir Arthur
M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)
Surtees, Brig. -General H. C.


Finney, Samuel
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Stirling)
Talbot, G A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
M'Guffiin, Samuel
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.
M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Macmaster, Donald
Thomson. T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Forrest, W.
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Thorne. G. R. (Wolverhampton)


Galbraith, Samuel
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James l.
Thorne. Colonel W. (Plaistow)


Ganzonl, Captain F. C.
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Tickler, Thomas George


Gardner, E. (Berks, Windsor)
Martin, A. E.
Tootill, Robert


Geddes, Rt. Hon. sir A. C. (Basingstoke)
Mitchell, William Lane-
Tryon, Major George Clement


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut. -Col. J. T. C.
Vickers, D.


Gilmour, Lieut. Colonel John
Murchison, C. K.
Waddington, R.


Glanville, Harold James
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
Wallace, J.


Glyn, Major R.
Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke, Trent)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh)
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Ward, Colonel L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Green J. F. (Leicester)
Nall, Major Joseph
Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)


Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar
Neal, Arthur
Wardle, George J.


Greig, Colonel James William
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)
Waterson, A. E.


Griggs, Sir Peter
Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Grundy, T. W.
Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)
Weigall, Lt.-Colonel W. E. G. A.


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (Leic., Loughboro')
Norton-Griffiths, Lt.-Col. Sir J.
White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)


Hacking, Colonel D. H.
Oman, C. W. C.
Whitla, Sir William


Hall. F. (Yorks, Normanton)
O'Neill, Captain Hon. Robert W. H.
Wilkie, Alexander


Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow)
Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)


Hanson, Sir Charles
Parker, James
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Hartshorn, V.
Perkins, Walter Frank
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Hayward, Major Evan
Perring, William George
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Philipps, Gen. Sir 1. (Southampton)
Wolmer, Viscount


Hennessy, Major G.
Philipps, Sir O. C. (Chester)
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


Herbert, Denniss (Hertford)
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Hewart, Rt. Hon. sir Gordon
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray
Young, Lt.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Hilder, Lieut-Colonel F.
Pownall, Limit. -Colonel Assheton
Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)


Hinds, John
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Young. William (Perth and Kinross)


Hirst, G. H.
Ramsden, G. T.
Younger, Sir George


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)



Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy
Roberts. Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.- Captain


Holmes, J. Stanley
Robertson, J.
F. Guest and Lord E. Talbot.


NOES.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gould, J. C.
Pearce, Sir William


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir E. A.
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood-
Grant, James Augustus
Raeburn, Sir William


Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Fred. (Dulwich)
Rees, Captain Tudor (Barnstaple)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hogge, J. M.
Remnant, Colonel Sir James


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)


Campbell, J. G. D.
Hurd, P. A.
Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F.


Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.
Kenworthy. Lieut. -Commander
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Lyle, C. E. Leonard (Stratford)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (M'yhl)


Chadwick, R. Burton
McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Colvin, Brig. -General R. B.
Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.
Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)
Moore, Major- General Sir Newton J.



Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
Newman, Major J. (Finchley, M'ddx.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Major


Elveden, Viscount
Nicholl, Com. Sir Edward
Barnes and Mr. Marriott.


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William



Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, to leave out the words
Where the generating station of any company is vested in or acquired by a district elec-
tricity board under this Act, and the company has created and issued mortgages, debentures, or debenture stock, whether irredeemable or not, charged upon such generating station, it shall be
lawful for the company to give notice to the Holders of such mortgages, debentures, or debenture stock to repay the same in whole or in part out of the proceeds of such sale no withstanding anything contained in the mortgage or the debentures or debenture stock trust deed, but in the case of debentures and debenture stock at the rate at which the debentures or debenture stock could be paid off in the event of the winding up of the company:
Provided always that the cost which an auditor appointed by the Electricity Commissioners certifies to have been necessarily incurred in obtaining the release of any mortgage or other charge shall be borne and paid by the district electricity board.
I explained to the House that this is moved simply in order to move in the same words again at a more convenient place.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In Sub section (2, a), leave out the word "be" ["shall be one or more"], and insert instead thereof the words" at the option of the local authority be either (1)."—[Mr. shortt.]

6.0 P.M.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2,a), after the word "outstanding," to insert the words
Provided always that in computing such annuity, or annuities, no account shall be taken of any reserve fund belonging to the local authority.
In the Committee stage there was some discussion with reference to the position of the reserve funds of municipal authorities established in connection with electrical undertakings, and we then received an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Home Department that more definite information on the subject would be forthcoming on the Report stage. Broadly the position of the Clause which we are now discussing amounts to this, that under it the municipal authorities have the choice of receiving an annuity or annuities in respect of their outstanding obligations in interest and sinking fund charges, or, if they so elect, they may receive payment on the basis of cost, less depreciation. At the moment we are concerned with the position of the payment of the annuity. A small number of the municipal authorities in Scotland and elsewhere have built up reserve funds in connection with their electrical undertakings, and the point which I desire to press specially upon the attention of the right hon. Gentleman is this, that as we understand the position there was no statutory obligation at all to establish such reserve funds. They were established for
the purpose of dealing with any contingency which arose in running the electrical undertaking or in handling any exceptional or unexpected situation or difficulty which might emerge, and as there was no statutory obligation to build up the reserve fund, it is quite clear that they were first of all the result of the goodwill, the voluntary act of the municipal authorities, and they were built up by a sacrifice on the part of the consumers of electrical energy or light in getting that light and power at a rather higher charge, and perhaps also by being deprived of the application of this money to any local or other purpose to which it might properly have been applied.
We consider that it would be altogether unfair if in reckoning the annuity or annuities under this Clause these reserve funds were taken into account, partly because there was no statutory obligation to build them up, and partly because they represent a sacrifice on the part of the people of the district which, in point of fact, need never have been made at all. I should be the last in this House, I hope, to plead specially the interests of any particular district, but in Committee we pointed out, taking our own undertaking in the city of Edinburgh as an example, that we had accumulated there a reserve fund of, approximately, £100,000, and in the event of the transfer of that undertaking to a district electricity board I gathered that that reserve fund would fall to be taken into account in computing these annuities. In Committee the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that that was not the case, but, unfortunately, for some of us, the position was never entirely cleared up, and we had to found our argument on the Report of the Committee over which the right hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Sir A. Williamson) presided, and, unless I have misunderstood the Report of that Committee, it indicated that reserve funds were to be taken into account; and the theory which we adopted after that was that any Regulations which were framed for the transfer of these undertakings would be based on the Report of this Committee, and that the reserve funds would, of course, receive attention. I trust the Home Secretary will be able to make it clear that these reserve funds are to be excluded. It may be asked that if the generating stations and the main transmission lines are transferred to the district electricity board, what does there remain to do with any
reserve fund which may have been accumulated? But I presume that the local authority or the municipal undertaking would still have large duties in distribution, and there is no doubt they would find plenty of uses for the product of what I rightly call the sacrifice of the community and of the consumers in this connection. On these grounds I beg to move my Amendment.

Mr. ROYCE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. SHORTT: I think my hon. Friend may rest assured that these words are entirely unnecessary. The reserve fund is provided for by Section 7, I think it is, of the Companies Act of 1899, and that pro-vides that there may be a reserve fund amounting to 10 per cent, of the total capital. The fact of that reserve fund does not in any way alter the liabilities of the local authority
for interest and sinking fund charges in respect of such sums borrowed for the purpose of providing the generating station or main transmission line as are at the date of the transfer outstanding.
The fact that you have a reserve fund does not mean that your liabilities outstanding are any the less. They may be met by the reserve fund, if you like, but they are still the same, whether the reserve fund is there or not, and that is all that this provides for. Therefore, the reserve fund would not be touched in any way by the provisions of this Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: In Sub-section (2, a) leave out the words
Provided that in lieu of such annuity or annuities a local authority shall be entitled, if it shall so elect, to be paid such sum as may, in default of agreement, be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade to have been the cost of and incidental to the construction of the generating station or main transmission line and the acquisition of the site thereof, less depreciation;
and insert instead thereof the words
or
(ii) a capital sum calculated in like manner and on the like principles as the standard price in the case of a company.
Leave out the words "further that if in any case," and insert instead thereof the words "that if in a case where the first alternative is adopted."—[Mr. Shortt.]

Mr. MARRIOTT: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2, b), to leave out the words "certified by an auditor, after hearing the
parties interested, appointed by the Electricity Commissioners," and to insert instead thereof the words "determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade."
The whole point is this: So far as the discussion on this Clause has proceeded, the Home Secretary, for the Government, has declined to accept Amendments which as some of us contend, would have gone some way towards giving those who are to be bought out the terms which were guaranteed to them, as we contend, under the Act of 1888. Now a further point arises. We are to be asked under this Clause, which refers to generating stations and main transmission lines belonging to a company or person, when arriving at the value of such stations or lines to accept the value put upon them by an auditor appointed by the purchaser. I submit that that is not a fair way of arriving at the value of anything which is to be taken over. An auditor is a servant appointed by the Electricity Commissioners, who in this case are the purchasers, to carry out their instructions, and I venture to submit that it would be a far fairer method of arriving at the value of the undertaking to substitute for an auditor who is the servant of the purchasers an arbitrator appointed or approved by the Board of Trade.

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. SHORTT: May I first of all remove a misapprehension which my hon. Friend appears to be under? The Electricity Commissioners are not the purchasers; the electricity board or the joint authority, as the case may be, would be the purchasers. Again, it is not an arbitrator's work. It is a pure question of fact, which an auditor could perfectly well ascertain. In the case of local authorities, the auditor is in the same way appointed by the Electricity Commissioners, and nobody appears to have raised any objection to the case of the local authorities under this Clause being decided by an auditor appointed by the Electricity Commissioners. There is a provision lower in the Clause that, if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that the expenditure so to be taken into account or the amount of depreciation so determined would work injustice, that expenditure or amount shall, in default of agreement, be determined by an arbitrator
appointed by the Board of Trade. I think that really does satisfy all that is necessary in this case.

Sir F. HALL: I am not at all satisfied on this point. I think an arbitrator should be appointed. I can understand an auditor taking the books and saying, as regards the books, there are the figures that are shown. But this is a totally different matter. An arbitrator has to act in a sort of judicial matter and has to make himself thoroughly acquainted with the electrical undertakings. I can understand an auditor, a chartered accountant, doing excellent work as an auditor, but, in my opinion, he is not qualified to judge what is the proper amount that should be arranged in regard to undertakings of this magnitude. I think an arbitrator who is thoroughly well versed in the whole of electrical undertakings should be appointed, as it is only by that means that a proper and an equitable decision can be arrived at. I am sorry the Home Secretary has not viewed it from that point. However, perhaps on reconsideration a little later on, he may see the point I have ventured to put before him, because I am sure, or I believe, he is desirous of seeing that all parties are dealt with in an equitable manner, and why there should be any objection to an arbitrator being appointed I cannot understand.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I beg to move, in Subsection (2, b), to leave out the words
the lands, buildings, works, materials, and plant suitable to and in actual use by the company or person for the purposes of their undertaking which are vested in the district electricity board, together with the amount of the expenses incurred as…
This Amendment is very closely connected with the last, but nevertheless stands on its own footing. I am merely proposing in the Amendment to make this paragraph read as the previous paragraph would have read. The words seem to me to be preferable. It is not very much more than a drafting Amendment, but it is a drafting Amendment of some importance.

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. SHORTT: Really these words ought to be in, otherwise it is quite possible that there would have to be awarded payment for plant and machinery that had been scrapped. I am sure no one
would wish that a company should be entitled to payment, not only for that which is in use, but should be entitled to be paid for that which they have scrapped as no longer of any value. I think the words cover all that is given in the proviso in the previous paragraph, "cost of, and incidental to, the construction of the generating station or main transmission, line." We have the same words and the same protection here. These words are necessary in order to ensure that only that portion of the plant which really is used by the company for the purposes of their undertaking should be appraised.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: May I ask what the Home Secretary understands by the word "expenses," because there might be the case of a company which was formed with a considerable amount of promotion money, and there is interest? Are all those things included in the word "expenses"?

Mr. SHORTT: I do not understand that the words "expenses incurred as and in-incidental to the construction of the generating station or main transmission lines" cover such matters as that. I should not, of course, take that to include the cost of promoting a Bill, and things of that sort.

Mr. MARRIOTT: Might I ask the Home Secretary one question? Why is it that when he was dealing with the local authorities the Home Secretary accepted two principles—first, that the value in default of agreement should be determined by the arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade? When I ask that the same principle should be applied in the case of the companies, it is denied to me. Again, in the case of local authorities he was prepared to take the words "cost of and incidental to the construction of the generating station." I am merely asking that these words should be also applied in the case of the companies. Why does the right hon. Gentleman propose on these two points to treat the companies differently from the local authorities?

Mr. SHORTT: The local authorities are taking first of all an annuity or annuities. Failing that, they can claim the cost of and the expenses incidental to the construction of the generating station, etc. This is a question for arbitration. With regard to the companies, they are to get "such sum as may be certified by an
auditor" and is properly standing in their books for that purpose. It will be the cost of the lands and so on. If that works any injustice, they are then entitled to an appeal under the same treatment as local authorities, and to have an arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade to decide the question.

Lord R. CECIL: I do not quite follow what the answer of my right hon. Friend is to my hon. Friend (Mr. Marriott). It is said companies are to have the cost of the lands "suitable to and in actual use by the company," and therefore their position, so far as that is concerned, is confined to those lands. That does not appear to be applied to the local authority. So far as I can see, the local authority would be entitled to be paid for all the cost of the lands, even if not suitable to or in actual use. I do not quite follow why there should be a difference in the treatment.

Mr. SHORTT: The first proviso was put in after discussion with the local authorities. They then asked to have an alternative payment. With regard to the companies not being treated on the same footing, they are in no way identical, of course. They were to get payment for only that portion of lands, buildings, works, etc., which they might have bought during their existence, and is still returnable as part of the going concern.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: The Home Secretary has stated that the words in connection with the local authority were put in after consultation with the local authorities. As a matter of fact, the words exactly as they appear in the Bill were written out by me, and handed in, and were incorporated in the Bill the next morning. I framed those words because I found the local authorities in a very great difficulty, as they were only to be paid out by an annuity or annuities, and I held, in common with local authorities, that they should be entitled to receive, if they so desired it, a cash sum, and so framed this proviso, which was adopted as a fair and an equitable settlement. That being so, I was very much surprised when we came to deal with the companies that different treatment should be meted out. I thought I was supporting a fair Clause, whether to the municipalities or to the companies, but I am afraid, unfortunately, some of my hon. Friends took rather a different view when it came to meting out justice to the
companies. I certainly think the words proposed to be omitted from paragraph (b) should be omitted.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made:

In Sub-section (2,b) leave out the words "in actual use" ["suitable to and in actual use by the company"], and insert instead thereof the word "used."—[Mr. Shortt.]

Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2, b), to leave out the words "in actual use" ["and in actual use by the company"], and to insert instead thereof the words "capable of being used."
If we are to be limited to the machinery which alone is used, and to bar all the machinery which is capable of being used, the conclusion will be obvious. I think probably the Home Secretary fully intended to cover machinery capable of being used, not limiting this Sub-section strictly to machinery which might at the particular moment be in use.

Mr. SHORTT: I think the words in the Sub-section will cover not only the machinery which is in actual use, but any new machinery about to be used, but not actually in use at the moment. The words are taken from Section 2 of the Act of 1888, and cover everything, even though it may not be in actual use at the moment. We believe the words cover everything that can reasonably be included.
Amendment negatived.

Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to move, in Subsection (2,b), to leave out the words "less depreciation" ["the site thereof, less depreciation"], and to insert instead thereof the words "with an addition for appreciation or a deduction for depreciation."
I do not want to restate the case, which, perhaps, has been stated in an Amendment moved by my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Barnes), so I say that the object is to get rid of the hardship on a company incurred by taking over only the actual cost of the undertaking less depreciation. The actual cost is the pre-war cost, and the cost now is approximately three times the pre-war cost. In other words, £100 worth of plant in pre-war time will to-day cost approximately £300. If you take a literal depreciation from that £300 on an average it will give you something well in excess of £200. The pro-
posal as contained in the Clause at present is to give the company simply £100, being the pre-war cost, less an unknown amount for depreciation—probably £60— for what cost £100 in pre-war days, and what is to-day, perhaps, worth £200. I admit the words are somewhat clumsy, but their effect would go some small way to do justice to the companies. I trust the Home Secretary will see his way to accept the Amendment.

Sir W. PEARCE: I would like to reinforce the argument of my hon. Friend by asking the House to consider not the transfer, say, from one public authority to another, but the transfer from private ownership to a public authority. I submit; that it will be creating a very serious precedent for the House to pass a Clause of this sort; where there is an enforced obligation to transfer to the public authority from the private individual or company, in which the cost does not represent the value. The case is one not very dissimilar to the acquisition of property, for instance, for public improvements in the shape of roads. It might be very well argued that a man, having paid £1,000 for a house required to be pulled down for the widening of a street, and its value now being three times more, that the public authority promoting a Bill in Parliament to acquire tin; land for the widening, would say that, naturally the man is entitled to the old and not the present value. On the other hand it would cost the man two or three times more to put up a new house. I think this is setting up, a very dangerous precedent. I do not believe the House as a whole really knows what it is actually doing. I should like again to point out that there is a great deal of difference in the transfer from one local authority to another and the present case. If you are going to take private property, or the property of a private company at one-third of its existing value, and insist that it shall be acquired by a new Government Department at the old value, you are setting up a very dangerous precedent which may go a very long way.

Mr. MARRIOTT: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Supposing this Amendment is rejected, will it not put my own Amendment which follows out of order?

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes. The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman raises the same point that we are now discussing, and there will probably be the same arguments.

Mr. BALFOUR: With great respect, Sir, I do not think I am dealing with the same point. The remedy I am putting forward is on similar lines to that proposed in the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle. Quite a different remedy is proposed.

Sir F. HALL: I think the Home Secretary in the Committee stage did not really intend that these words "less depreciation" should go in. I think the right hon. Gentleman recognised the purchase price, at all events, ought to have been on the terms referred to in another Sub-section. By some mistake, however, these words have inadvertently got into this measure. It is not for me to say how. I wish to make myself perfectly plain. There is no question of a breach of faith on the part of the Home Secretary. But I do say that the Home Secretary was agreeable that the purchase price should be paid without the words "less depreciation." We had decided the application of the 1888 Act; then the right hon. Gentleman came on with an arrangement by which the terms of purchase should be as set out here in this paragraph (b). The Home Secretary said that he realised the difficulty between the cost price and what should be paid under the 1888 Act, and that he was, therefore, prepared to agree that the cost should be the cost as standing in the books of the company. The House has already decided that it is not of opinion that the market price should be given. Why? Because there is a strong depreciation in value owing to the present labour conditions. My hon. Friend who has moved this Amendment knows, as do many others, that these words were inserted owing to a mistake. Because a mistake has been made Members here are not desirous of handicapping a private undertaking by not putting the thing right. I have every confidence in this tribunal. I am sure it was never the intention of my right hon. Friend that these words should be put in. I trust under the circumstances he will explain to the House how the mistake arose, and be prepared to put it right. We did not discuss it fairly in the Committee—not that actual point—in regard to these words inadvertently put in. I hope the Home Secretary will acknowledge it and take the necessary steps to put the mistake right.

Mr. SHORTT: Let me at once begin to acknowledge that there was no mistake, and no inadvertence, I deliberately made
arrangements. I seized upon them to get rid of the previous arrangement in order to insert the words which, to my mind, are essential. We are standing honourably by the second arrangement. If the companies had been obliged to provide themselves with new generating stations after we had taken the others over, then what my hon. and gallant Friend said would have been relevant. Under all the circumstances I think it is perfectly fair and right to offer a very different price to the price entitled to be demanded if the companies themselves had to supply these things.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I desire to support the Amendment. Before proceeding in a very few words to do so, I want to put this perfectly straight question to the Home Secretary: Whether the Amendment now being moved by my hon. Friend does not, in substance, reproduce the Amendment which the Home Secretary himself was prepared to move on the Committee stage of the Bill? He had an Amendment on the Paper, leaving out the words "less depreciation," or an Amendment to that effect. That is in the recollection of every member of the Committee upstairs. That Amendment stood in the name of the Home Secretary on the Order Paper. The Amendment which I have put down and which you, Sir, have very properly ruled to be out of order if this Amendment is rejected— I quite understand that—immediately succeeds the Amendment we are now discussing. It would simply reproduce the position which the Home Secretary at one point of the Committee upstairs was prepared to move.

Mr. BALFOUR: May I say I would willingly withdraw my Amendment in favour of my hon. Friend's Amendment if the Home Secretary will accept his own Amendment!

Mr. MARRIOTT: I very much regret that my hon. Friend did not allow me to move my Amendment I should have liked to put it forward, and for a capital reason which I was wishful to explain to Members of the House which were not members of the Committee.

Sir F. HALL: On a point of Order. If my hon. Friend the Member for Hamp-stead -withdraws his Amendment, would it be in order for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr. Marriott) to move his Amendment?

Mr. SPEAKER: Both the Amendments are the same—that is, to omit the words "less depreciation," and that is the Amendment which we are now discussing.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I feel at some disadvantage having to speak to an Amendment which is not my own, but I wish to explain what the position was upstairs. I had an Amendment on the Paper which was infinitely larger in scope than this Amendment or the one in my own name, and that Amendment I withdrew because there was an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the Home Secretary giving us what we are now asking for. I do not say that there is anything in the nature of bad faith, but I had some conversation with the right hon. Gentleman on this point, and I withdrew my Amendment because I believed there was I an understanding that the Home Secretary's Amendment would be persisted in, but if the right hon. Gentleman's recollection is not the; same as my own then I accept entirely his explanation. My Amendment was withdrawn clearly on that understanding. The Home Secretary's advisers had prepared a Memorandum on this question which was I circulated to all the members of the Standing Committee, in which it was stated, after a careful calculation, that roughly it would be just to pay the cost without deducting depreciation. That statement was circulated to the members of the Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman himself put down an Amendment in that sense, but it was not moved, and all we are pressing the right hon. Gentleman to do now is to adhere to his own words.

Colonel Sir J. REMNANT: I hope the House will give me time to explain the situation. We hear it stated that the Home Secretary moved Amendments in Committee which he has withdrawn now, and he substitutes others in their place. I should not like to give a silent vote on this very important matter, and if the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I should like him to explain what he means by the words "less depreciation." So far as I can gather the right hon. Gentleman has framed this Bill on the Report of the Committee which inquired into electric power supply, presided over by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir A. Williamson), and that was a Committee appointed by the Board of Trade, and I take it this Bill is based on that. That Report recommended that these generating stations
should be acquired, less depreciation. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend that these words should include the depreciation reserves, or are they to be taken over without any payment and depreciation to be given in the ordinary way on similar lines for all companies when generating stations are taken over? The right hon. Gentleman knows that the amount of depreciation written off by various companies varies considerably. Some of them are prosperous, and write off more than others; some are not so prosperous and not well managed, and they do not write off anything whatsoever. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to depreciate all generating stations on similar lines, or does he mean he is to take over all the reserve funds set aside against depreciation?

Mr. SHORTT: The reserve fund will be untouched.

Sir J. REMNANT: I am glad to have the statement that the reserve fund will not be touched, and that statement is very important.

Mr. NEAL: I do not think the Home Secretary has applied himself to this Amendment. The Amendment is to leave out the words "less depreciation," and let us consider what the effect of that would be between two companies, one that has kept its undertaking up to date during war time at great expense, and another company which has allowed its undertaking to fall into a state of disrepair, almost to the verge of collapse. The latter company would have to go into the market to buy at appreciated prices, and the former company, which has kept its undertaking up to date, would not need to incur that expense. Depreciation is not to be taken into account, that is yon have to pay for the generating stations and plant what they cost, and in principle you are to pay exactly as much for the; derelict stations as for the well-equipped modern stations. There was not a single supporter upstairs for any such, policy, nor do I think that a single Member of this House would wish to support it. It is perfectly plain that you are violating one -of the simplest canons of business: if you are to take over undertakings without regard to depreciation.

Mr. BALFOUR: Apparently my hon. Friend has not read the whole of the Amendment.

Mr. NEAL: What we are now discussing is the question, "That the words 'less depreciation' stand part of the Clause," and that is the Amendment under consideration. That is the point I am; dealing with, and what I am stating must be apparent to every business man, that any public authority should take over art undertaking quite irrespective of its present state of repair at the cost of the undertaking is a violation of a simple axiomatic principle of business. This proposal would give full value for plant, some of which was produced before the War, some during the War, and some may be since, with a deduction for depreciation.

Sir F. BANBURY: Why not?

Mr. NEAL: That question has been; dealt with by the House on the earlier Amendment, and with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I do not propose to repeat what I said on that occasion. The suggestion is that these new boards are to be handicapped by taking over stations which are worn out at cost price. You take over a machine which is five years old at exactly the same price as you take over a machine that is one year old, and I cannot believe that that is a proposal which will commend itself to the business acumen of this House.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I do not think this is at all fair. I do not regard this question, from the same point of view as the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Neal). Let us take this matter to its logical conclusion. It is true that it is not right to pay full price for dilapidated machinery. Take a company which laid out £1,000,000 in plant in which the directors happened to be good business men and they have not distributed large dividends but have put aside for depreciation £900,000, leaving the plant which might be worth a great deal more at £100,000, that is they have written off too much in their conservative way of managing finance. Is the House going to adopt a system which is going to take that plant over at £100,000 and penalise the frugality of the directors because they have kept their money in hand, and have not distributed it in the form of dividends? I do not think the House would countenance a system of that sort, and I think these words will have to be explained in a much broader spirit by the Home Secretary.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I do not understand from the Bill that, if the company had spent £l,000,000 and had put aside.£100,000 for depreciation, the Government propose to take that over. I understand the condition of the plant is to be ascertained in accordance with the regulations made by the Electricity Commissioners, and the amount of depreciation will be fixed in accordance with those regulations, and they will not have regard to what has been set aside for depreciation. [An HON MEMBER: "That should be made clear!"]

7.0 P.M.

Sir F. FLANNERY: I think the debate is exceeding the limits of the exact importance of the words in question, and I would like to call the attention of the House to the real merits of this discussion. If a plant be taken over with depreciation on the one hand and without depreciation on the other hand, is that fair and reasonable? Is it right that the authorities should acquire the property of these undertakings after deducting the depreciation either from wear and tear or other causes without on the other hand being liable to pay to persons who have established any claim for appreciation. I have tried to understand what grounds there are for the right hon. Gentleman holding the view that he does that there should not be appreciation on the one hand when depreciation is deducted on the other hand. If it commended itself to the right hon. Gentleman that justice required appreciation to be considered as well as depreciation, then the arrangement would be extremely simple. All that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) would need to do would be to ask leave to withdraw his Amendment and allow the words "less depreciation" to continue in the Bill, and then, after that leave had been given, it would, I hope, be competent for him to move that the words of which he has given notice "with addition for appreciation" should be inserted after the word "depreciation." That would be good grammar, and it would I think, make for the good understanding of the Bill. It would give what common-sense would suggest is reasonable, and would carry out the intention of the Government that the compulsory seller should have any advantage of any appreciation in value as well as being mulcted in what could fairly be considered as depreciation. I see my right hon. Friend shakes his head. Per-
haps he will tell us why. I confess that I personally have no understanding at the moment why appreciation should not be taken into account as well as depreciation, and I dare say that there are many other Members equally in the dark.

Sir F. HALL: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask one question?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member has exhausted his right to speak.

Sir F. HALL: I was only going to ask a question on one point that came up in Committee. Is it not a fact that the ! Board of Trade circulated a memorandum to the members of the Committee suggesting that the price paid—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak. He is only repeating a question which has been already put.

Mr. SHORTT: This is not a case of taking away a man's plant and generating station generally, and leaving him to provide himself in some other way with electricity. There is a provision in the Bill that he is to be provided with all that the generatng station has meant to him. Of course, if you take away anyone's plant and replacement is necessary, you must pay depreciation, but that does not arise here in any sense whatever. We provide for giving the cost price, less depreciation, and damages for severance. If the deduction for depreciation is considered unjustifiable, then the matter may go to arbitration. He gets the cost price less depreciation, and any damages for severance. He still retains the right to distribute, and he has the right to get from the Government authority a supply of electricty. If that is not sufficient, he gets his damages for severance. Under a subsequent Clause he can, if he chooses, go to the Government and say, "You must take me over lock, stock and barrel," in which case he gets different terms altogether. What is the appreciation that he would get? One does not like to use terms that might be construed as offensive, but they are war profits pure and simple. Any appreciation that there is in machinery is simply appreciation due to the great rise in the cost of material owing to the War. We do not think it right to pay for that appreciation. That is our view, and that is the explanation that I give to the House.

Mr. BALFOUR: May I call attention to the case of a municipality or company which has done a considerable amount of replacement and charged it to revenue account?

Major GREAME: There is another point. If you take the cost price as the basic, and then pay the cost price less depreciation, you may find yourself in this position. During the last four years the cost of material and of construction has been steadily increasing. In consequence of that a conservative undertaking has put an increasing amount to depreciation each year. During the ten years up to the outbreak of war an undertaking may have set aside each year a reasonably fixed sum or a certain percentage of its value as depreciation, but since the outbreak of the war the actual cost of replacing something, which is what depredation means, has been increasing. If the basis were going to be the market or present value, that would be a reasonable proposition, but you start with the original cost price, which is a wholly artificial basis, and you take from that depreciation. It is very important to know whether that depreciation is going to be taken as if the cost of replacement were the same as before the War, because you are going to lose a very great deal if you take the increased cost. I do not know if I have made myself clear, but this is going to be dealt with by Regulation, and it is quite obvious, unless we have an undertaking on that point, the whole of the original basic figure might be wiped out by taking the depreciation on what is now three times the original cost. It is very important that the House should know. It will probably command my vote one way or the other if we can get an understanding on this point.

Sir F. BANBURY: It would be well if we could get some education of the position which has been put by my hon. and gallant Friend. Suppose a company has spent £1,000 on plant, and before the War had put by £50 per year for depreciation. During the five years of the War, or certainly during four years of the War, that amount would have been not £50, but £150. If you multiply £150 by four you arrive at £600, and if you take ten years before the War at £50 that makes £1,150. You therefore have to take £1,150 from £l,000, which you cannot do. The result is that the company has to pay £150 to the Government for being taken over. It is rather a difficult and
unsatisfactory position. Perhaps my hon. Friend (Mr. Bridgeman) will be able to tell us what is the actual result of leaving these words in the Bill.

Sir EVAN JONES: There is one aspect of the question which has not yet been touched upon. Unquestionably, the principle of deduction for depreciation is a sound business principle, but, if it applies in one case, it must apply in all cases. Later in this Bill there is a provision which enables companies to require the Electricity Commissioners to buy the whole of their undertaking, and the remarkable fact is that if they elect to soil the whole of their undertaking the are paid for it without any deduction or depreciation. That is an anomaly. If the undertakers, in selling a part of their undertaking such as the generating station or the main transmission line, are to have depreciation deducted, why in the name of goodness, if they sell the whale of their undertaking, is no depreciation to be deducted? Yet that is what is provided later in this Bill. I am not sure whether the hon. Members who are pressing for the omission of those words have fully considered what the result will be. Assuming that the undertakers later on call upon the Electricity Commissioners to purchase the whole of their undertaking, they are paid back the depreciation which is now deducted from them. If hon. Members will look at Clause 12 of the Bill they will find that is so I am not quite sure whether I am in order in referring to a Clause which comes later, but it is very difficult to understand these things unless you look at them with a full knowledge of everything that is coming afterwards, and undoubtedly under Clause 12 any undertaker who sells the whole of his undertaking is enabled to do so without any deduction for depreciation. Consequently, if first of all he sells a part of his undertaking from which depreciation is deducted, and, later, he sells the whole of his undertaking valued at the capital expenditure which has been incurred upon it, and if from that capital expenditure is to be deducted only the amount which is repaid on account of the part already taken over, then obviously he gets back the depreciation which was deducted in the first place. Why should it be the case that any company which sells only a part of its undertaking has depreciation deducted, when if it sells the whole undertaking it re-
ceives the original price without any deduction for depreciation? That is the point on which we should hear something from the Government.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): I am afraid I am under a disadvantage in not having heard the earlier part of the Debate on this Amendment. But the points which have been raise [...] since I have been hero seem to turn on the question how the depreciation is to be arrived at. The depreciation is to be settled in accordance with the Regulations made by the Electricity Commissioners, and if those Regulations appear to work an injustice, then the matter, in default of agreement, is to be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade. Regulations will be drawn up for calculating the depreciation, and as in the event their appearing to work an injustice the matter is to be settled by arbitration, that seems to me the case of all concerned.

Major GREAME: Who is to lay down the procedure in regard to the arbitration if the Regulations appear to work an injustice?

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: This question of depreciation is a very important, one, because, if we consider the cost of replacing any of these works at the present time, there would be a very large appreciation, and, therefore, there ought to be a considerable addition. Do I understand the Government agree to accept the words "less depreciation"? That, I take it, was the agreement come to upstairs, and it is, to my mind, an extraordinary matter that they should go back from the arrangement then come to. We all know how depreciation is arrived at; the depreciation will be taken really from the original cost to the company, and they will, therefore, obtain a very much less sum than if the undertaking were taken over altogether. I have been handed a document which I understand the Board of Trade now read in an entirely different sense. The words are:
The Board of Trade believe that such an arrangement would not be regarded as a satisfactory solution of the difficulty. After discussing with representatives of the companies and after full consideration of all the circumstances the Board of Trade have come to the conclusion that the most reasonable compromise is to make the standard price in the case of London companies the actual capital invested in the assets taken over by the district electricity boards.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Is my hon. Friend referring to Clause 12?

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: No; I am referring to Clause 7. This Paper was handed to me as the document which was used to satisfy the members of the Committee upstairs, and a promise was given to put down an Amendment to this effect. But it is now scrapped, and we are asked to take a most insufficient sum or to submit to arbitration. I challenge the Government to say whether that is fair treatment of the electricity companies. I ask them not to go back on their promises, not dishonourably to cancel every principle which they offered to the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh !"] Well, I apologise; I will simply ask them not to cancel every principle they offered to the House as reasons for carrying through their proposal.

Lord R. CECIL: I do not think my hon. Friend was present during the earlier part of the Debate. There appears to have been some misunderstanding as to what took place in Committee upstairs. I do not think the Government can be fairly charged with any breach of faith or any dishonourable conduct.

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I admit that at once.

Lord R. CECIL: There are two questions concerned here. The first is whether we ought to pay for the value of these generating stations on the basis of their present value, and on that point I confess the Government's reply seems to me overwhelming. If it were a question of replacement of the generating stations, evidently we ought to pay on their present value, but as the Government are going to supply the electric current which the generating stations now produce that it does not seem necessary to pay the actual cost of the stations. Then comes the question, what exactly should be paid to the company. The proposal is to pay the actual money spent on the generating stations less the depreciation. I think that principle is right. I do not think we ought to give them the full amount they paid originally, since you are in future going to give them their electricity and you are only taking from them the things which they may be said to have there in their hands, the actual material. It is said with great force, and this I think is the one point the Government has not met, that depreciation involves payment of the value
at the present time, and it may well be that even taking oft' the depreciation, the present market value would amount to more than the original actual cost of the station. But I am satisfied that the Government do not mean that. What they mean, no doubt, is that the depreciation shall be calculated on the basis of the percentage of the original cost, and if that is so there is no injustice. On those grounds I cannot support this Amendment.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There are two other questions I should like to answer. It is quite clear that as the people who are affected by the Regulations will have the power, should they consider themselves subjected to an injustice, to make an application for an arbitrator, it will be in the nature of an appeal to the Board of Trade, and that Department would not lay down the rules which would govern the procedure of the arbitrator in that case. With regard to the pledge quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Everton, Sir J. Harmood-Banner) from a document which he did not identify in any way. but which suggested the Government had treated as a scrap of paper, I am perfectly convinced in my own mind that no pledge was made by the representatives of the Government upstairs that the words "less depreciation" would be left out. I am glad the hon. Member has withdrawn the phrase he used against the Government. The general intentions of the Government in regard to the Regulations are those which have been indicated by the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) and so far as I can see the power of appeal against any injustice will ensure that nobody will be any worse off.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It has become more and more obvious during the Debate that a great deal is going to turn on the Regulations which the Electricity Commissioners are to make. Would it be possible before the Third Reading of the Bill to let us see a draft set of the Regulations, or, if that be impossible, would the hon. Member object to providing on the face of the Bill that the depreciation shall be determined in accordance with Regulations which shall be laid on the Table of the House? That would give us an opportunity of seeing what the Regulations actually are.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: In Sub-section (2, 6) leave out the words "a sum"
["with the addition of a sum"], and insert instead thereof the words "such sum as in default of agreement may be awarded by an arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade."

Leave out the words "any company, body," and insert instead thereof the words "the company."—[Mr. Bridgeman.]

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2, b), after the word "section" ["in Sub-section (5) of this Section"], to insert the words
Provided that, if in any case it is proved to the satisfaction of the Electricity Commissioners that, owing to exceptional terms of purchase contained in the special Act or Order relating to a company the standard price, as calculated as aforesaid, would work an injustice, the Electricity Commissioners shall, on the application of the company, refer the matter to an arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of Trade for his determination whether any and, if so, what addition to the standard price, as calculated as aforesaid, should be made.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "exceptional" ["owing to exceptional terms of purchase"], and to insert instead thereof the word "the."
If it will facilitate matters, perhaps I should move the next Amendment standing in my name. I do not know whether this is the time to do that?

Mr. SPEAKER: We must take the Amendments one at a time.

Mr. BALFOUR: Then, in support of this Amendment, I would submit that it must be clear to the House that it should not depend upon exceptional terms of purchase.

Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My hon. Friend will remember that the Amendment I have just moved has been moved to meet a particular case which was raised by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Mac-Veagh), namely, the cape of the Dublin Tramways Company, who have special terms in regard to purchase. When the Home Secretary undertook to move some words to meet his case my right hon. Friend said it would be subject to an alteration in the wording which the hon. Member for South Down then proposed. The wording has been altered in order to confirm the matter to cases where the terms if purchase are special terms as apart from any other exceptional terms.

Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak.

Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.

Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Air. G. Balfour) I understand is consequential?

Mr. G. BALFOUR: That is so: I do not move it.
Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. MARRIOTT: The next Amendment standing in my name is consequential upon that already rejected by the House; therefore I do not move it.

Mr. ROYCE: I beg to move, in Subsection (2, b), after the word "aforesaid" ["such depreciation as aforesaid"], to insert the words "together with any compensation for damage due to severance as aforesaid."

Mr. FINNEY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. The Amendment which has just been agreed to provides that compensation for damage due to severance can be settled by arbitration. The effect of this Amendment would be to provide that it should be settled by Regulations. It will be obvious to everybody that it would be very hard to draw up Regulations which would cover every particular ease, and it is far better that any difference there should be, and there may be many differences, should be settled in reference to each particular case by a special arbitrator.

Amendment negatived.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2, b), after the word "Commissioners" ["Regulations made by the Electricity Commissioners"], to insert the words "which shall be laid before Parliament."
I do not think I need repeat what I said just now in regard to this matter.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have no objection in principle to this proposal, but I have some little difficulty in accepting it, because I
am not quite sure whether what my hon. Friend suggests could be done in the time. If he will kindly withdraw his Amendment we will make every attempt to do it. I hope that before the Royal Assent is given we may be able to meet his wishes, but I am not in a position to give a definite undertaking that that shall be done.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The effect of inserting these words would not necessarily be to bind the Government to lay the Regulations before the Bill receives the Royal Assent. It only commits the Government to the principle of laying the Regulations before Parliament. If they can lay them before the Royal Assent is given to the Bill, so much the better.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Perhaps it would meet my hon. Friend if I accepted his words now and then. If it is necessary to make any alteration, it can be dealt with in another place.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In Subsection (4), after the word "station" ["railway generating station"], insert the words "dock generating station."

In Sub-section (5), leave out the words "a district electricity board acquire" ["Whenever a district electricity board acquire."]

After the word "station" ["district electricity board acquire a generating station "], insert the words, "is vested in a district electricity board."—[Mr. Bridgeman.]

Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to move, in Subsection (5), to leave out the words "electricity not less in amount than," and to insert instead thereof the words "such quantity of electricity as may be required for the purposes of the undertaking and as regards the amount that."
This is an Amendment relevant to a great deal of discussion which took place earlier in the day. In Committee upstairs the Home Secretary stated that there was already a provision in the Bill compelling the district electricity board to give a supply of electricity to the full extent required by the undertaking for the whole purpose of that undertaking— that is, to give a supply of electricity not only to replace the supply of electricity given from the generating station taken over, but also to meet the fullest possible requirements in the future. I have looked carefully through the Bill, and particu-
larly at Clause 11—which, I think, was the Clause referred to by the Home Secretary upstairs—but I can find no such provision. Without the Amendment, I am suggesting, the undertaker will be in the position of having parted with his generating station, being protected to the full extent of the electricity he himself could have generated or had in immediate contemplation, protected not only as to obtaining the supply but, it is quite true, protected to some extent as to the price at which the supply is to be given, because the supply is to be given at a price not greater than that at which he himself could have produced it. With my Amendment, the Subsection will read—
thenceforth to supply to the authority, company, or person from whom it is transferred. Such quantity of electricity as may be required for the purposes of the undertaking and as regards the amount that could have been generated at the generating station by that authority, company, or person.
Without these words, so far as I can read the Bill, the undertaker would be called upon to give a supply in his area but would not be able to compel the district board to give the full supply required. Upstairs there was a great discussion as to the unfairness of a suggestion on these lines, as it was suggested that undertakers would compel a supply at a lower price for the surplus requirements of the undertaking than that at which the undertakers themselves could have supplied it. These words amply protect a district board against any such proposal. It compels them to give a supply as to quantity in excess of the amount which might have been generated at the generating station, but only the amount which could have been generated at the generating station at a fixed price. I trust the Parliamentary Secretary can see his way to accept this Amendment.

Sir F. HALL: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I quite appreciate the point raised by my hon. Friend, and I am quite ready to accept his Amendment, but I am a little doubtful as to the wording. I think I should be quite safe in accepting it now if my hon. Friend will understand that there may have to be some verbal alteration, which I do not think will alter the sense in any way, at a later stage.

Mr. BALFOUR: I accept that, and am prepared to alter the wording in any way.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to move, after Sub-section (7), to insert
(8) Where the generating station of any company is vested in a district electricity board under this Section and the company has created and issued mortgages, debentures, or debenture stock (whether irredeemable or not) charged upon such generating station, it shall he lawful for the company to give notice to the holders of such mortgages, debentures, or debenture stock to repay the same in whole or in part out of the proceeds of the sale, notwithstanding anything contained in the mortgage or the debentures or debenture stock trust deed, but in the case of debentures and debenture stock at the rate at which the de[...]ernt r[...]s or debenture stock could be paid off in the event of the winding up of the company:
Provided that the cost which an auditor appointed by the Electricity Commissioners certifies to have been necessarily incurred in obtainin the release of any mortgage or other charge shall be borne and paid by the district electricity board.
This is only to put in a more convenient place in the Bill a passage which was left out in an earlier part of the Clause

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not understand what is the object of it. A company has borrowed a certain sum of money upon debentures which are irredeemable—that is to say, they cannot be redeemed unless the company is wound up. The company is not going to be wound up. Only a portion of it, namely, the generating station, is going to be taken away. We have been told that the profit is not in the generating station, but in the distribution. Why, if the profit is to be left to the company, should the debenture holders be forcibly deprived of their property? Then the Clause says, "to repay the same in whole or in part out of the proceeds of the sale." Therefore it contemplates that the proceeds of the sale may not be sufficient to repay the whole of the debentures. Are they to be drawn, or how are the debentures to be chosen? suppose there is a debenture debt of £500,000 and the profit on the purchase of the generating station only amounts to £250,000, are the £250,000, of debentures to be paid oil, and, if so, how is that particular, £250,000, to be chosen? I do not see any reason for this Sub-section, which is encouraging the company to commit a breach of faith. The company borrowed the money in irredeemable debentures, and an irredeemable debenture can only be paid oil in the event of the winding up of the company. Why should the Government suddenly say, under the circumstances which have now arisen, "We will sanction your breaking of the agreement and you may redeem the irredeemable debentures in the same way as
if the company was wound up"? I do not see any object in it. I do not see what the Government or the Electricity Commissioners are going to gain by it. It is all tending in the direction, of which I have a great horror, of not keeping an inconvenient bargain. It does not follow because these words were in another part of the Bill that they are good words. In fact, the contrary is more likely to be the case. I want to know why these words are in, and I want a justification for it.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: These words were not in the bill originally, but were put in in order to meet a point raised by the late Commander Norman Craig, who was understood to be representing the wishes of the companies. The Government put these words in to meet what seemed to me at the time a reasonable object on, and the Committee deemed it reasonable. If the House thinks it better to leave them out it is perfectly immaterial to the Government.

Mr. NEAL: There are two points of view from which this question may be approached—that of the companies and that of the debenture holders. You are taking away from the company part of its assets—very tangible assets—its generating stations, its machinery and plant, and its main transmission lines. By so much you are reducing the security upon which the various lenders have advanced their money, and I can very well understand someone speaking on behalf of the debenture holders, saying, "We have a claim to that money to be distributed amongst us now. You have no right to reduce the assets of the company by this amount, and leave our charges outstanding at their full value." I can quite understand the right hon. Baronet urging that with great force, and on simple, equitable grounds. If you reduce the security you ought to reduce the loan upon the security. I can quite understand an Amendment moved in that sense giving the debenture holders or mortgagees a right to claim that the sum should be handed over to trustees for them and distributed pro rata, not by a system of drawing or any chance methods, but distributed so far as it would go in discharging their obligations. That is not the objection which I understand the right hon. Baronet to take: He said, "You are compelling these debenture-holders or stockholders, so far as their stock is irredeem
able, to take it, although it is irredeemable." There is something to be said from that point of view, but there is a great deal more to be said from the other point of view. Look at the position of the companies. A company finds itself suddenly in possesion of funds which have been paid to it for a portion of its undertaking. What is the company to do with that money? Obviously the first thing it ought to do is to apply it pro tanto in discharge of its liabilities, and there would be very grave reason to complain on the part of the shareholders if they were told they had to keep that fund earmarked or invest it as a fund against the reduction of the irredeemable stock. In point of fact, it is obvious that these words should stand.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment made: After the word "company" ["it shall be lawful for the company"], insert the words "with the consent of the holders of the mortgages, debentures, or debenture stock."—[Sir F. Banbury.]

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

Further Amendments made: At end of Sub-section (8), add the words
or where the standard price consists of an annuity upon any instalment, or the annuity from the date when the instalment becomes payable until payment.

Leave out Sub-section (10). —[Mr. Bridgeman.]

CLAUSE 9.—(Restrictions on the Establishment of New Grentrating Stations.)

Notwithstanding anything in any special Act or Order in force at the passing of this Act, it shall not be lawful for any authority, company, or person to establish a new or extend an existing generating station without the can eat of the Electricity Commissioners, but such consent shall not be refused unless a local inquiry has been held, and this restriction shall not apply to the establishment or extension of a private generating station provided that in the case of the establishment of a new private genarating station the owner thereof shall comply with any Regulations made by the Electricity Commissioners as to the type of current, frequency, and pressure to be used:

Provided that, in the case of a railway company using or proposing to use electricity for traction, consent shall not be refused unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the Electricity Commissioners that a district electricity board or authorised undertakers are or will be willing and in a position to give the railway company a supply of electricity at such frequency as the railway company requires, adequate in quantity and regularity to meet the present and prospective demand of the railway company, at a cost not greater than would have been incurred by the railway company in supplying themselves:

Provided also that—

(a) where a group of persons carrying on or intending to carry on businesses in which large quantities of electricity are used for purposes other than for provision of mechanical power or light propose to establish a generating station for the purposes of such business;
(b) where a manufacturer having a business in which electricity can be generated from energy derived from a process of manufacture carried on in his premises proposes to establish a generating station for the purpose of supplying electricity not only for his own business but also to other manufacturers whose businesses are associated therewith, the Electricity Commissioners may authorise the establishment by or on behalf of those consumers or that manufacturer of a generating station, subject to the condition that any surplus electricity generated beyond that required by those consumers or, as the case may be; by the business of that manufacturer or the associated businesses shall be supplied to the district electricity board, or any authorised undertakers, at such prices as the Electricity Commissioners may think fit and proper, and may by Order authorise the exercise of such other powers (including the breaking up of roads, railways, and tramways) as may be necessary for the purpose of obtaining such supply, and the generating station shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as though it were a private generating station.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to move, after the word "station" ["extend an existing generating station"], to insert the words "or main transmission line."

8.0 P.M.

Sir. F. BANBURY: These words, I am afraid, are likely to cause considerable injury to the railway companies. I do not say for a moment that in this case there was an agreement with the railway companies, though the matter was discussed at very considerable length between them and the Board of Trade. The result of putting in ' main transmission line" would be to deprive the companies of any right that they might have to use the electricity which they had in their generating stations if the generating station would carry no more power than it did at the time that the Bill became law. Where a company has its own generating station it may not be used to its full capacity, and in order to use it to its full capacity new transmission lines would be necessary. If this Amendment is carried, the company will not be able to put in new transmission lines without the consent of the Electricity Commissioners. I can give an example of one company
which has a power-house in a considerably unused capacity. The line has been electrified for a distance of fourteen or fifteen miles out of London, but there is enough power in the station to electrify the whole line for a distance of about thirty miles. As I understand this Amendment, that could not be done without the permission, of the Electricity Commissioners, because new transmission lines would have to be laid. That seems to be a very curious position to take up, and one not at all likely to encourage the use of electricity upon the railways. Whether or not electricity in future will be the great power on the main lines of railways I do not know; I rather doubt it. At any rate, it may be, and it will, be the great power upon most of the suburban lines. It must be remembered that this Bill is for all time, whereas on the Transport Bill power is given to the Transport Minister instead of the Board of Trade in this Bill, the second part of it, which deals with railways, has only about twenty-one months to run. We do not know what will happen in those twenty-one months. The railways may be given back to their owners, or there may be various arrangements made. This power of not being able to put in new transmission lines will remain for ever. Therefore, it is a very serious consideration for the railway companies that the Government should have taken this step at this very late hour. I suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn. In twenty-one months from now we shall know what the future of the railways is going to be, and if they then become the property of the State, or if the State acquires any large controlling interest in them, it will be quite time to bring in a short Bill amending the Electricity Bill by putting in these word about transmission. They are premature at the present moment, and I trust the Amendment will not be pressed.

Viscount ELVEDEN: I understand that a change of policy is contemplated, and one on which many experts have divergent opinions as to its necessity. The Government will have an opportunity of raising the whole question in twenty-one months time, and that will be the proper time to raise it. If I understand the situation aright it is a question of putting up along the railways vast Eiffel Towers. In that case it would certainly be none too late to contemplate this change in twenty months' time. Mean-
while your plans could be maturing, your policy could be shaped, and you may then find it necessary to get some legislation through on the subject of the railways. The proposal to leave this over till that time would not be fraught with danger to the community. On the other hand these towers might be very dangerous to those who travel by rail it they are put up in unsuitable places. It is not the owners of the property whose interests have to be looked after but of the whole community who use the railways. For two years the responsibility is out of the hands of the directors and rests upon the Minister of Transport. At the end of that time you will have to consider the whole situation as to future responsibility for the railways and it would be better to wait until then.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I quite followed the line of argument of the right hon. Baronet, but I think his apprehensions are not very well founded. Like so many Amendments on this measure this one is founded on the assumption that the Electricity Commissioners will do something very foolish and very unreasonable. My right hon. Friend might realise that they would have no intention of taking the transmission lines which the railway companies would want to use for their own distribution system, and preventing them from using those lines. What is intended is to prevent other transmission lines being brought in without their full assent and approval. If my right hon. Friend has so little confidence in the judgment and wisdom of the Electricity Commissioners, we might possibly meet his difficulty by an alteration in the definition of transmission lines in Clause 44; but I could not accept what he proposes now. I hope he will trust to the common sense of the Electricity Commissioners.

Sir F. BANBURY: What would you do under Clause 44?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: What I suggest in Clause 44 would be to make the definition of transmission lines so clear as to make it plain that the cables to be used by the railway companies for their own distribution would not be included in the proposal.

Sir F. BANBURY: That would suit me, and I am very much obliged, and I would be glad to accept that.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: Leave out the words "but such" ["but such consent"], and insert instead thereof the-word "which."

After the word "refused" ["shall not be refused"], insert the words "or made subject to compliance with conditions to which the authority, company, or person object."—[Mr. Bridgeman.]

The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: After the word "held" ["has been held"], insert the words "by a competent and impartial person appointed by the Board of Trade."

Sir F. BANBURY: After the concession made by my hon. Friend it will not be necessary for me to move my Amendment. May I ask him if I understood him correctly on the previous Amendment to say that he will put down the Amendment he suggested in Clause 44?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes. Perhaps the right hon. Baronet will remind me.

Amendment made: Leave out the word "and" ["and this"], and insert instead thereof the word "but."—[Mr. Bridgeman.]

Mr. WADDINGTON: I beg to move to leave out the words
the owner thereof shall comply with any Regulations made by the Electricity Commissioners as to the type of current, frequency and pressure to be used,
and to insert instead thereof the words
the consent of the Electricity Commissioners is obtained to the type of currency, frequency and pressure to be used.
The Clause as it now stands provides that Regulations have to be made by the Commissioners before a new generating station can be erected. It is felt that that provisio will act as a hardship on those who propose to experiment in electricity. In the Committee it was suggested to leave out the concluding words of the Clause, without putting in any new words, and the words which I now suggest to be inserted were suggested as a compromise, but the hon. Member who had charge of the Amendment was not prepared to accept it. I hope it may meet with the approval of the Government now, because it will give greater elasticity to those who wish to experiment and take the initiative in new forms of electrical power. We know that at the present time there are two or three different fre-
quencies in this country. In America they have a quite different frequency. Probably by research and experiment we might get something which will be quite different, and which will give an electric generating plant of a type which will cost less to put in and which will be less costly in running, and the general economy will be greater. It is to allow for development of that character that this Amendment is moved.

Mr. SUGDEN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I recollect the discussion on this point in Committee. I doubt whether these words are an improvement on the words in the Bill. I am advised the Commissioners would prefer to have this matter dealt with by Regulations, and, as they have to draw up the Regulations, it is perfectly obvious it could not be done without their consent. I hope, therefore, my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.

Mr. SUGDEN: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak.

Mr. BALFOUR: Perhaps the point will be met by the Amendment in my name which stands next on the Paper, which would have the effect of leaving the Regulations but giving protection to the working of the business. Perhaps that would meet my hon. Friend opposite,

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not know whether that would meet the view of the Mover of this Amendment; if so, I would accept it, although I do not think either of the Amendments are necesary.

Mr. BALFOUR: When this Amendment was put down the Home Secretary said the words were quite new, and he asked for further time to consider them, and asked me to bring it up at this stage. It is recognised that some words like these are necessary.

Mr. WADDINGTON: I beg to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: After the word "used" ["pressure to be used"], insert the words
but such Regulations shall be so framed as not to interfere with the economical and efficient working of the business for which the supply is generated."—[Mr. G. Balfour.]

Sir F. HALL: I beg to move, after the word "traction," to insert the words
and in the case of the owners of a dock undertaking regulated by Act of Parliament using or proposing to use electricity for the purposes of their undertaking.
'This Clause is one which restricts the establishment of new or the extension of existing generating stations without the consent of the Electricity Commissioners. Private generating stations as laid down in the Bill are exempted, but dock generating stations unfortunately have not been placed in the same category. The first Amendment which we had down this afternoon, with which the Home Secretary dealt, placed railways and docks on the same footing. Railway generating stations here come within the same category as private generating stations. That concession was obtained by an Amendment moved by my Noble Friend (Viscount Elveden) opposite in the Committee stage, and I think that he drew attention to the fact that the railways were statutory undertakings carrying out duties for the benefit of the public. Anyone who knows anything about docks knows that they are statutory undertakings, not run on a profit basis, but run for the benefit of the public at large, and I cannot see that they should not be treated in exactly the same way. There were a great many arguments in regard to docks in the Committee stage, and in Clause 7 an Amendment was carried including docks and putting them on the same basis. Perhaps it has been an omission on the part of the Home Secretary to overlook the fact that this concession had been granted to the railways. I hope that in the circumstances the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to accept this Amendment. He will remember that we have had a discussion on the subject, and though he has not committed himself to its acceptance yet I do think that he is favourably considering the matter

Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: This Amendment certainly does impose more duties upon the Electricity Commissioners, and I am not quite sure that its effect will be so great as my hon. and gallant Friend thinks, but if he feels strongly on the subject and the House is agreeable I am quite willing to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: After the word "company" ["company or"] insert the words "or owners."—[Sir F. Hall.]

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to move, to leave out the words, "at such frequency as the railway company requires."

Viscount ELVEDEN: These words make an alteration in the Bill which seems to involve a technical point. It is not possible for me to express an opinion as to their effect on the railways, but as I understand it is just possible that it may affect the railways adversely to be compelled to use a frequency which they are not accustomed to use which may not be so useful for the purposes of traction. On the other hand I am advised that all electricity has to be converted when used for traction; but a point which struck me—I do not know if it has any substance, and I hope the Government will bear it in mind—is whether the words "at a cost not greater than" a little lower down really cover the possible increased cost due to using one frequency more than another as the conversion of it may be more expensive. I ask the Government to make quite sure that the cost is not when they get the electricity in bulk, but the cost when actually used. There is no hardship if you pay for the electricity, when you are using the horse-power, whether you get it done in trains by one frequency Or another as long as it goes through the same train, but it does seem to me that there is some little doubt as to what the words "at a cost not greater than" really mean, because it might be simply that you got your electricity in bulk at a cost no greater. I hope that the Government may be able to suggest some words that will safeguard the position of the railways.

Major GREAME: I would ask my Noble Friend to consider whether he is not in this matter taking a narrow view. He has been very well met by the Government today. If we regard this from a purely sectional standpoint it may do serious damage to the main purpose of the Bill. I know exactly what my Noble Friend is referring to. I understand that it is the case that the cost of transformation may be very slightly greater in the case of one frequency than another, but as against that we have got to take a broad view of this matter. The whole object of this Bill is to get power stations which are going to be run as the most efficient power stations that we can get. It would be a fatal thing if the railway companies were going to take a narrow view of this matter and we were to have two power
stations instead of one. The railway companies really would suffer because it is far better from the general point of view to get a single power station to meet all requirements, and it would be unfortunate, just to meet a small point like this, to set up two power stations where one might do.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think my Noble Friend was very reasonable in his speech. I gathered that he did not very much expect that the Government would change their attitude on the subject, The matter was discussed upstairs, and I believe he himself proposed the words which are in the Bill, and it was agreed that they would be considered, subject to verbal alteration, if necessary, between the Committee stage and Report. As has been pointed out if these words are left as they are, it might enable a railway company to demand some impossible kind of frequency so as to resist being linked up with another station, for that reason it seems to me necessary to move the words out. I agree that the railway companies are sufficiently protected by the word "cost" which comes lower down in the paragraph. The cost would naturally include any change of frequency between the source of supply and the railway system.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: After the word "company" ["at such frequency as the railway company requires"] insert the words "or owners."

After the word "company" ["demand of the railway company at a cost"] insert the words "or owners."

After the word "company" ["incurred by the railway company in supplying"] insert the words "or owners."—[Sir F. Hall.]

Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), after the word "light" ["power or light propose to establish"] to insert the words "desire to supply electricity from or."
The simple object is to give to the owner of the existing station the same right as would be given to a group of persons who propose to establish a generating station. There is another Amendment in my name immediately following which would have the same effect. In Committee it was accepted by the Home Secretary, but unfortunately, I not being expert in procedure, failed to
move it in Committee before the question was put. The simple meaning of this Amendment and that which is later on the Paper is to ensure that the existing owner of a generating station may have the same right as the owner of works who proposes to establish a generating station.

Mr. SUGDEN: I beg to second the Amendment

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I understand the effect which my hon. Friend desires to produce, but I cannot make his words read into that sense or into any sense at all. If his desire is to deal with the case of an existing station, I agree with his intention, and I think we should have words moved in another place to meet it. But the words of the Amendment as it stands are not admissible

Mr. BALFOUR: I am quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment if words can be inserted to cover the point. I think the next Amendment in my name is quite clear.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would rather deal with the thing as a whole, and get words drafted by an expert to meet the whole point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to move, in paragraph (b), after the word "shall" ["the associated businesses shall be supplied to"], to insert the words "(if required by the Electricity Commissioners)."
This may be necessary for the protection of the Electricity Commissioners. The amending words are not put in with a view to getting some advantage which is not discernible on the surface, but is entirely for the protection of the Electricity Commissioners.

Mr. WADDINGTON: I beg to second the Amendment. It is an important Amendment, and will have a very considerable effect upon administration.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am quite prepared to accept this, because I think it is an improvement.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: Leave out the word "obtaining" ["for the purpose of obtaining such supply and the"].—Mr. Bridgeman.]

CLAUSE 11.—(Powers of District Boards in Respect of the Supply of Electricity.)

(1) A district electricity board shall have power to supply electricity within their district subject to the following limitations, that is to say, the board shall not supply electricity—

(a) in any area which for the time being forms part of the area of supply of any authorised distributors without the consent of those distributors, except to lighting authorities, or to railway, tramway, canal, or in and navigation companies or authorities for the purposes of traction or haulage, or for lighting vehicles and vessels for the huge or traction of which electricity is supplied; or
(b) in any part of the area of supply of a power company for any purpose for which the company are therein authorised to supply electricity, without the consent of of the company except to the previous owner of a generating station which has been acquired by the district electricity board:

Sir F. HALL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, a), to leave out the words "lighting authorities, or to."
The whole of this paragraph allows district boards to compete with authorised undertakers without their consent for the supply to lighting authorities of street lighting and such-like. My hon. Friend, I am sure, will recognise that a large proportion of the income of these authorised undertakings is derived from such things as street lighting. In many places the lamps belong to the authorities themselves. Different classes of machinery are wanted for generating or distributing the electricity for these authorities, and if business of that class is to be taken away from these authorised undertakers and placed in the hands of the district board, I am sure it will be recognised as prejudicial and unjust to those authorised undertakers. They have installed this plant and gone to all this expense on the distinct understanding that until 1942 this business shall be left in their hands. Unfortunately Parliament decided that that was not to be done. At the same time, I am sure that this House is wishful to treat them in a reasonable manner. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.

Captain BOWYER: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In Subsection (1,a) leave out the word "tramway"—[Sir F. Hall.]

Sir F. HALL: I bog to move in Sub-section (1,a) after the word "railway," to insert the word "dock."
Docks are not included and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be inclined to look favourably on the Amendment.

Captain BOWYER: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The docks are not in the same position as railways or canals, and where they are in areas of different authorities the difficulty will be met by Departmental procedure under an Electric Lighting Act.
Amendment negatived.

Sir F. HALL: I beg to move, at the end, to insert the words
(4) Where in any district a company or person being authorised distributors has no generating station of its own within such district and the generating station supplying such company or person has vested in the district board the district electricity board shall, if so required by such company or person, purchase the undertaking of such company or person within such district upon the terms set forth in Sub-section (4) of the Section of this Act whereof the marginal note is "Transfer of undertakings to boards.
I am sure the House will recognise the difficulties of those companies which have no generating stations but which have been in the habit of receiving their current in bulk by power companies and such like under special agreements. When the stations of those undertakers are acquired by the district boards and when the companies hitherto so supplied are exposed to the competition of the district board the conditions may affect them very prejudicially. They have no guarantee that the cost of the supply will not be increased or even that their distributing business will not be diminished. It seems, therefore, only fair that they should have the same option to sell their undertakings to the district boards as is given under Clause 12 (4) to companies which have already sold their stations compulsorily. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will recognise the reasonableness of this proposal.

Captain BOWYER: I beg to second the Amendment. By Clause 12, any company which has had its generating station taken under the provisions of Clause 7 has the right to say, "Buy us out, lock, stock, and barrel," on the terms of Clause 12 (4). I submit there should be a similar provision
for a company which has got no generating station, and which receives its electricity in bulk.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved did so with the same degree of assurance as in the case of previous Amendments. which were accepted, and I did not gather from his speech that he really thought he had a strong case. The case he presents is of some company which is now being supplied by a generating station which does not belong to it. That generating station is acquired by the district authority, but the company is enabled to get the same amount of electricity at the same price, if not cheaper than before, and so suffers no kind of damage that I can see from the acquisition of this other generating station by the authority. Yet by this Amendment my hon. Friend claims, that they should have the right, under Clause 12, to force the board to sell their own undertaking, which is in no way prejudiced by the circumstances related in the Amendment. I am afraid I cannot accept it.

Sir F. HALL: I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise the fact that they can only claim at the same price the same quantity of electricity as they generated before.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 12.—(Transfer of Undertakings to Boards.)

(1) Any local authority being authorised distributors may, with the consent of the electricity Commissioners, agree with the district electricity board of the district in which the a ea of supply of the authority or any part thereof is situated for the transfer to the board of the whole or any part of the undertaking or the authority within that district in considerat on for the payment of one or more annuities of such amount or amounts and containing; for such period or periods as an auditor appointed by the Electricity Commissioners may certify to be required to indemnify the local authcrity against their liabilities for interest and sinkng fund charges in respect of SO much of the money borrowed for the purposes of the undertaking or part-thereof as is outstanding at the date of the transfer: Provided that—

(a) where part of the area of supply of the authority is situated in a l cality which is not included in an e ectricity district the powers of purchasing that part may, if the Electricity Commissioners consent, be exercised by a district electricity board within whose district any part of the area of supply is situated; and
(b) where any generating station or main transmission line belonging to the local authority has previously been vested in
1557
or acquired by the district electricity board under this Act, the interest and sinking fund charges in respect of any money borrowed for the purpose of providing the generating station or main transmission line shall not be taken into account.
(2) Where under the Electric Lighting Act?, or under any Order made thereunder or under any special or local Act, any right to purchase the whole or any part of the undertaking of any authorised distributors is vested in any local authority (including a county council), the right shall on the constitution of a district electricity board for the district comprising the area of the local authority be transferred to and vest in the board, and any Order or Act conferring any such right shall be construed accordingly:
(4) Where by virtue of this Act any generating station or main transmission line belonging to a company or person being authorised distributors is vested in a district electricity beard, that board shall, if so required by tile company or person within two years from the date of vesting, purchase the whole of the remaining part of the undertaking of that company or person upon the terms of paying a sum equal to the amount certified by an auditor appointed by the Board of Trade to be the amount of capital expenditure on the whole undertaking properly standing in the books of the company or person, less any sum paid or payable as purchase money in respect of any generating station or main transmission line so vested as aforesaid.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words
of one or more annuities of such amount or amounts and continuing for such period or periods as an auditor appointed by the Electricity Commissioners may certify to be required to indemnify the local authority against their liabilities for interest and sinking fund charges in respect of so much of the money borrowed for the purposes of the undertaking or part thereof as is outstanding at the date of the transfer,
and to insert instead thereof the words
at the option of the local authority of either one or more annuities or a capital sum, calculated in like manner and on the like principles as the standard price in the case of a generating station is to be calculated.
This Amendment is moved in pursuance of an assurance given to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Thomson) in Committee, and what the Home Secretary undertook was that the local authority should be given the option to adopt the standard price as an alternative to the other arrangement.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: Leave out. the words
and (b) where any generating station or main transmission line belonging to the local authority has previously been vested in or acquired by the district electricity board under this Act, the interest and sinking fund charges in respect of
any money borrowed for the purpose of providing the generating station or main transmission line shall not be taken into account."—[Mr. Bridgeman.]

Mr. WADDINGTON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "shall" ["the right shall on the constitution"], to-insert the words "as regards the generating station and main transmission lines of such authorised distributors."
The object of this Amendment is to-secure uniformity for the local authorities. Under the Clause the local authorities are differently treated. Those which fire now distributing electricity will have all the-rights which they now possess reserved to them, but those which have leased their undertakings to a company will have the right taken away from them to purchase their undertakings at the expiration of the period for which they have been leased. It seems singular that in a measure like this there should be two different standards set up to govern the local authorities, and this differentiation affects some very important districts, such as Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Preston, and Market Drayton. There are a large number who feel that the distributing portion of the undertaking should be in the hands of the local authority and not of the district electricity board. The duties of the board are to provide for the cheap and abundant generation of electricity. The finding of customers, the distributing of the electricity, the enterprise shown in the locality can best be done by local authorities on the spot, and if this Amendment is carried it will give to the Government all that they have taken in any other form from other local authorities. It will give them the absolute right to acquire the generating station and main transmission line, but it will leave to important places like Newcastle and Preston, and so many other districts their local rights as distributors.

Mr. SUGDEN: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so for the reason that one feels that if this Bill is to become a successful Act there must be equality of treatment between all sections of those who are to carry out its obligations. One feels that right through the Bill those to whom powers are given will be working one against the other unless everything is made equal for them, and I am most perturbed that such Clauses as this will be detrimental to the experimental work. Unless the local authorities are given full powers for experimental
work they will not in the least concern themselves how and in what way they should distribute the current.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot help thinking that the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment is under some misapprehension. This Sub-section merely transfers to the district authority the right local authorities had for purchasing the whole of the undertaking under the Electric Lighting Acts. He seems to be confusing this Clause with Clause 7, and, as I understand it, his Amendment is not applicable here. I noticed that he mentioned Market Drayton as one of the places affected, but they have not made any representations to me on the subject.

Mr. WADDINGTON: The point is that, wherever a local authority have leased their undertaking to a company, the right which they now have of purchasing the company at the end of its period is vested in the district electricity board. This particular Clause says that any right to purchase vested in the authority shall vest in the board, and that right, which is acknowledged in this Clause, is going to be taken directly away from them. The towns which I have mentioned, and all places where companies are in possession at the present moment, will cease to have the same rights as all other towns have, and it is to remedy that injustice that I move this Amendment.

Mr. NEAL: I have tried very hard to follow the object of this Amendment, but I confess that I cannot do so. The Clause is a very simple one. It deals with rights which are accruing at various dates in certain local authorities to purchase existing undertakings. The Amendment says that that right is only to be exercised with regard to the generating station and main transmission line of such authorised distributors; but surely that is a contradiction in terms. The right given by Statute is to buy the whole of the undertaking and not a part of it, or only to buy a part of it where it so happens that geographically the areas do not coincide. But where the undertaking is wholly within the district, the statutory right is to buy the whole. To put these words in the Bill is to transfer a right which does not exist—namely, to say that the district board may purchase the generating station and main transmission line only of such authorised distributors, instead of purchasing the
whole, as is implied and expressly stated in Section 2 of the Act of 1888. I trust this Amendment will not he accepted.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (1).
This Amendment is put down because it seems to some of us that the wording of this Sub-section gives to the bodies which are possessed of these undertakings an opportunity of disposing of concerns which may not be very profitable, and the authority will have no option but to purchase them if this Sub-section stands. If they are running concerns and paying well, they need not do it, but if there is any difficulty in that respect, according to this, they have, after two years, the power of compelling the authority to take them over. That is how the matter reads to us, and we feel that it is not a fair basis in regard to this particular point. I should like to have some explanation as to whether the interpretation placed upon it is a correct one, and, if so, whether it is fair to retain words which will give opportunities to these bodies to dispose of concerns which may not be doing well, whilst not giving the authority an opportunity of taking over in the same way concerns which may be running at a profit.

Mr. ROYCE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Captain BOWYER: I do hope the hon. Gentleman in charge of the bill will not accede to this Amendment. This Subsection, as I understand it, says that where a company has had its generating station taken away under Clause 7, and finds that it cannot go on with any success in the business of distribution, the district electricity board shall buy up, lock, stock and barrel, in the same way as it has taken its generating station. I would submit that, as compared with Section 2 terms of the Act of 1888, this is the; very least the Government can do for these companies. There is, as we have heard earlier in the evening, this debt of honour—I prefer that term to a bargain—existing between Parliament and the Provisional Order companies under the 1888 Act, and if Section 2 terms are not to be given—that is, if the company are not to be able to go into the open market and say, "You shall buy me out at my true market value"—I do submit the company should be able to say, "You have taken
my generating station, and my distribution cannot be run possibly as a going concern. Now buy me out, lock, stock and barrel."

9.0 P.M.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I certainly cannot accept this Amendment The arrangement was arrived at after very careful discussion in Committee upstairs, and it was considered that this was the best way of dealing with a very difficult situation. It is quite possible that in some cases the authority might make a good bargain, and in some cases a bad bargain, in having to buy up the whole of the undertaking, but I think the important consideration is that, after having had the generating station and transmission line taken away from them, if they are to make any success of their distribution, which has been held over and over again during the Debate in this House to-day to be the valuable part of their concern, they will certainly have in some cases to raise fresh capital to carry out the distribution of electricity. That would be impossible for them unless those who are invited to subscribe have some sort of security for their money, and this provision was put in very largely to meet that difficulty—to enable the companies, in order to carry out the duties imposed upon them by this Act, to appeal to the public to subscribe capital for their undertakings, and for the new duties that would be imposed upon them.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: The hon. Gentleman has not given a reply to the question put to him. Is it a fact that the authorities will have power to take over a concern that is not paying, and will not have power to take over a concern that is paying?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is a question of giving a right to the companies from whom you are—at any rate, they think—taking privileges which they enjoyed under the Acts which exist up to this day.

Amendment negatived.

Sir F. HALL: I beg to move, in Subsection (4), after the word "board" ["is vested in a district electricity board"], to insert the words "or joint electricity authority."
I am not at all sure the Government will not say that this is covered by Clause 5. If it is, so much the better; let us put it in and make it perfectly plain. What is the position1! The Government has said, "We are desirous of seeing various private persons join together, and we are
desirous of seeing joint electricity authorities, so that they can work together for the good of the public in general requiring a supply "This Sub-section says, "Where by virtue of this Act any generating station or main transmission line belonging to a company or person being authorised distributors is vested in a district electricity board, that board shall, if so required by the company or person within two years of the date of vesting," pay so and so. Yes; but what about the joint electricity authority? They have been divested of their generating stations and all their main transmission lines. This Clause was put in so that you should not turn round and say after, for instance, taking the vitals away, "What I have left shall be sold as scrap." The Government recognise the fact that if it were sold in that way the authority would practically get nothing for it, because it is useless to-anybody else. If you take a man's generating station and also the main transmission lines, and he has only got the distributing plant left it is worth practically only scrap. I have read Clause 5 very carefully. I see the intention is that it should be included. If the intention is there let us make it perfectly plain, in. order that if this Bill, as it possibly will, come before the Law Courts, it will be seen that it is clearly laid down that, at all events these joint authorities are-treated on exactly the same terms as the others.

Captain BOWYER: I beg to second the Amendment
I have at the back of my mind the idea that the joint electricity authority will be clothed in the future with exactly the same power as the district board—at least where those powers are now. Though this Amendment is perfectly reasonable, I am rather hoping that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will tell me that it is unnecessary. If the point is not absolutely covered, I think the proposed words will do no harm. They will tend to make the position clear, and will give, even in the area where the joint electricity authority and the companies are operating, the same opportunity, the same option, of coming in under Sub-section (4) of Clause 12.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My hon. and gallant Friend behind me is quite right in prophesying that I should say that his Amendment is unnecessary. May I call the attention of the hon. Members to Sub-section: (6) of Clause 5 which speaks of
applying in relation to the joint electricity authority any of the provisions of this Act relating to district electricity boards.
That completely covers a point which has been raised by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. We had this discussed many a time in Committee, and there were many Resolutions put forward. They were all withdrawn whenever it was pointed out that the master as covered, as it is, by the Sub-section of Clause 5 which I have just quoted.

Sir F. HALL: I thought my hon. Friend would say the thing was covered. I still, however, adhere with all deference to him, to my view of the matter. I cannot for the life of me see why the words I propose, "joint electricity authority," should not be inserted. The ideas of my hon. Friend and myself are synonomous. We both are desirous of making the Bill as clear as possible, so as to avoid the slightest difficulty hereafter. After what he said I admit the point is covered by the Clause quoted, and I am bound to accept it; but I should have been more satisfied if he had accepted the words of my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to move, in Subsection (4), after the word "amount" ["paying a sum equal to the amount"], to insert the words "which has been."
This Amendment is followed by a couple of others which, if accepted, would make the Sub-section read to the following effect:
purchase the whole of the remaining part of the undertaking… upon the team of paying a sum equal to the amount which has been certified by the auditor appointed by the Hoard of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts to have been the amount of capital expenditure on the whole undertaking standing in the books of the company…
It is common knowledge that under the Electric Lighting Acts every authorised undertaker, from the first moment, is saddled with two auditors; that is as a joint stock company it has the auditor appointed by the company in general meeting. That is not, nor ever has been, sufficient for the purposes of the Government audit. The Board of Trade, therefore, by virtue of the powers conferred upon them have, in every case so far as I know, appointed a separate and distinct auditor for the purpose of the Board of Trade audit of the electric lighting accounts. I submit that it is only reasonable
that the account, as audited by the Board of Trade auditor, should be accepted for the purpose of any settlement publicly effected under this Act. The sole object of this Amendment, and the subsequent Amendments, is to substitute for an auditor who has yet to be appointed by the Board of Trade the audit certificate granted by the auditor who has always audited the accounts, and has already been appointed by the Board of Trade. I trust the Parliamentary Secretary will see his way to accept this Amendment. It is very simple and makes for smooth working in the future, and will facilitate business in connection with the transfer of these properties.

Sir W. PEARCE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not quite understand what particular merit there is in this form of drafting, or what my hon. Friend thinks there is better in the words he desires to introduce as against those in the Bill. They seem to me to be quite unnecessary.

Mr. BALFOUR: May I try to make them clear? The change in the wording is simply intended to mean that, the auditor's accounts up to the 30th September and the certificate of the Board of Trade auditor should be accepted instead of appointing, as by the Bill you do, a "new" auditor. My object is to avoid the appointment of two auditors, and to make the certification of the accounts and balance sheet by "the" auditor appointed by the Board of Trade sufficient.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am afraid I cannot accept that Amendment, and I hope the hon. Member will not persist in it. I am willing to accept the Amendment standing in the hon. Member's name to insert the words "prior to the dace of vesting together with any additional capital expenditure since that date."

Mr. BALFOUR: I have no desire to press my proposal if the hon. Gentleman does not think it is an improvement, but perhaps he will give attention to that point in another place. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (4), after the word "person" ["properly standing in the books of the company or person"], insert the words "prior to the
date of vesting together with any additional capital expenditure since that date."— [Mr. Bridgeman.]

Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to insert the words "less depreciation and."
When speaking on this point on Friday I was guilty of a misstatement of fact. I said that originally the Bill excluded railway generating stations from its scope. I think I may be pardoned for this mistake because the Bill has changed so often, and I find that the Government agreed to exclude railway generating stations, but in the original Bill they were in, and I wish to apologise to the House for that misstatement of fact. "With regard to this question, we had a discussion in Committee, as well as the discussion we have had in the House today, on the question of depreciation, arid I would submit that a fail-value of price which is sound and just with regard to the acquisition of generating stations and main transmission lines is equally sound and just when you come to the distributing section. The hon. Member opposite said he could not understand how the Government could maintain in Clause 7 the inclusion of depreciation and not include it in Clause 12, and it should be the same in both Clauses precisely. The House has passed Clause 7 providing that depreciation should be taken into account, and they cannot do less in Clause 12 than to agree that depreciation must be taken into account when arriving at a value for purchase.
It seems reasonable that when taking over a concern or arriving at a value you should take into account depreciate on. You may have an undertaking with a new and up-to-date plant, and another where the plant is obsolete and behind the times, as well as inefficient, and yet according to this Clause you are to have no regard to the condition of those two plants, whether modern or obsolete. If this proposal is just in Clause 7 it is equally just in Clause 12. The Parliamentary Secretary will probably say that this was the arrangement come to with the various undertakings, but this is a question which the House must settle on a basis of justice, irrespective of any pledges given during private negotiations. Clause 7, which fixes the basis, is dependent upon the fact that the main distributing lines are left to the companies, and unless they choose otherwise they have all the rights and powers which they possess under the
Act of 1888. They can demand from the new generating stations the supply of that power upon the same terms and conditions as they were generating for themselves. That is a protection they had against the terms of purchase in Clause 7.
I am willing to admit if Clause 12 had been compulsory and you had Said that district boards may acquire a distributing section on these terms there would be great cause for complaint, and inj stice would be done. This Clause is put in at the request of the competing companies, and is merely optional, as they choose themselves. As it is purely optional and put in at their request, if they prefer to maintain the rights they have under the Act of 1888, and maintain their distributing sections until those lights expire, I think they should be, allowed to do so. Current would be supplied to them from the generating power stations, and they hold and maintain all their rights as distributors under the Act of 1888, but if they choose to come to the Commissioners and abrogate their rights under the Act of 1888 it is only right that the basis on which they are taken over should take into account depreciation.
The Home Secretary admitted that he could riddle the Clause with arguments and, that it was clumsy, and he went on to say that if it did not unduly rob the company we need not quarrel any more about it. We do not want to unduly rob anyone, and we must not rob the company or the boards, who would be landed with these distributing stations on terms manifestly unfair if depreciation is not taken into account The right hon. Gentleman argued that a lump sum paid to the companies would be in the main fair, and he said that it did not matter if in particular cases the amount paid was not just, provided that the company was not unduly robbed. It is vital to each district board. It is essential for the cheap production of electricity that these district boards should not be mulcted with obsolete plant and not be unduly robbed, and have put upon them charges in that particular area which the plant will not stand. It is vital to each district board that they should acquire these undertakings if they have to acquire them on fair terms, and they cannot have fair terms unless depreciation is taken into account. In the interests of the provision of cheap electricity I submit to the House that you must take depreciation into account; otherwise your district boards will be handicapped from the
first, because they will be landed with obsolete plant at an extravagant price, and instead of getting cheap electricity they will be burdened with heavy capital charges and be unable to provide that cheap electricity which we all desire.

Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member who has moved this Amendment gave as his reason for doing so that this Clause did not coincide with Clause 7, and he referred to the speech of the hon. Member (Sir Evan Jones) who drew attention to what he called an anomaly. There is no anomaly at all, because the Government, in their defence of the words in Clause 7, said that if they were going to take away the property of the company there might be something for leaving out the words "less depreciation," but they were not going to do so. They were merely going to say, "Hand over your generating station to us, and we will give you at the same cost that which that generating station produced. "That argument seems to me to have some foundation, and the hon. Member will remember that there was no Division upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour). There is no relationship between the two Clauses. The first Clause deals with the depreciation. The property is not going to be taken over, and the companies are not going to be in a worse position, because they will have that which was produced in that station at the same cost as it was produced by them. Now you come to a totally different set of affairs. You say, "Supposing by this severance you are unable to carry on your business at a profit, then you may come to us and demand the money which you have spent." The hon. Gentleman says that that is going to prevent cheap electricity. However advantageous cheap electricity may be, it is not to be gained at the expense of breaking contracts or doing an injustice to people who have invested their money on the faith of Parliamentary powers. What have these undertakings in the hands of companies been paying. I have not looked it up, but my belief's that at the present time the great majority of them are worth the money which was originally spent upon them. [HON. MEMBERS: "More!"] I do not wish to exaggerate. Under these circumstances, I could understand a shareholder saying: "You are going to force me to sell my generating station,
and this may deprive me of a future which I thought secure. You must therefore not only give me back the money which I have spent and which was remunerative, but you must also give me something for my future profits." The Government do not propose to do that. They propose merely to give the money actually spent. Under these circumstances, I hope that the Government will stick to their proposal and will reject the Amendment.

Mr. NEAL: When I addressed the House earlier in the evening on Clause 7 I pointed out that later in the Bill the companies got something better than the 1880 Act better. It was upon this Clause that I founded that observation. The position is very simple. A company which has a generating station and a distributing business finds its generating station taken away from it. It is left with its distribution; but for how long? It is still left with the liability to be bought out, the district board taking the place of the local authority. If it is to carry on its distribution successfully, it will have to continue to lay mains, and anyone who knows anything about electrical undertakings knows that mains have to be put down though they cannot give any present profit; in tact, you have to look well towards the future The directors might very well say: "How can we go and get further money to develop our undertaking and fulfil our statutory obligations?" These companies have not only shareholders, but they have statutory obligations to supply the inhabitants of the district with the electricity which they require. They may say, "Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, how can we properly get the necessary money to carry on our business?" If there is one thing quite clear it is that it is not to the advantage of the country to have a series of laying companies dealing with electricity. Many would have liked it better if this Bill had been bolder and had gone in for complete nationalisation of electricity. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I did not say "all of us"; I said "many of us" This is not a bold and courageous measure of that kind. It still leaves private undertakings with certain undertakings and certain responsibilities. Surely, therefore, we have a right to say, on behalf of the public who are going to take over the undertakings, that we will try and protect the shareholders from actual loss. These shareholders stepped in to fill a public want. Electricity was.
not being developed by the municipalities or by the Government to the extent that was desired. Certain persons came forward and risked, their money. They said, "We have faith in the future of electricity; we know that for a period of years we shall probably not see an adequate return on our capital, but, looking forward, we hope to do so." They are now going to have their privileges very materially interfered with, and they come forward and say, "You are putting us in a position whereby we shall not be able to fulfil our obligations in the way that we ought to do, and we ask you to take us over." What does this Clause say? May I point out to my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) that it does not go quite so far in aid of the shareholders as he seemed to indicate by his speech, because there is one word, the word "properly," which requires judicial interpretation. I confess that I am not quite happy about that word. What is it that is to happen? The company is to give notice that it desires to be taken over, and the district board is to be under an obligation to purchase at a sum equal to the amount certified by an auditor appointed by the Board of Trade as the amount of capital expenditure on the whole undertaking properly standing in the books of the company or person less than which he has already received for the generating station. I can understand very serious differences of opinion arising as to the effect of these words "properly standing in the books of the company." It is plain that they must have sonic meaning given to them. They form a part of the Act of Parliament which cannot be ignored. There may have been expenditure on machinery which has passed out of use, or there may have been expenditure on the flotation of the company which might have to be wiped out. I things these words go a very much longer way in the direction of meeting what the hon. Member for Middlesbrough desires than either he or the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London appreciate.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am afraid I did not understand them, but I presumed they were put in to enable one learned Gentleman to say that they mean so much and another learned Gentleman to say they mean a different amount.

Mr. NEAL: I find myself in complete accord with the right hon. Gentleman. It is a result most devoutly to be wished for
by certain Members, but it will not be equally wished for by all Members. I ask the Home Secretary before this Clause is finally dealt with in another place to give some consideration to words which are capable of two or three different interpretations, and I shall be glad if the Government will find some way of giving effect to their meaning in a little plainer English. It is a matter of drafting rather than substance. On the whole, we are treating the shareholders in these companies somewhat generously, and, as pioneers, they are entitled to such treatment.

Mr. ROYCE: I support the Amendment. Hon. Members seem to have largely lost sight of the question that the remaining portion of the undertaking is to be bought out only at the request of the company I which, if it is not paying, is to be in a position to insist on being bought up by the authority it has the choice in the matter, and, that being so, I do not see why the words "less depreciation" should not be included.

Captain BOWYER: The hon. Member says that the companies have a choice in the matter, but they have no choice under Clause 7. Upstairs the Home Secretary told the Committee clearly that this matter had been very carefully considered, and that these words were put in because the Government realised that many companies would be suffering under a hardship which they could not possibly survive, and it was by only giving them a chance of claiming to be bought out, lock, stock, and barrel, that rough justice could be done. I hope the Government will stand fast in this matter.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I have no doubt that the Government will stand fast. I cannot imagine any fair-minded person taking such an advantage as is here suggested. This is what it really means: You give certain advantages under Clause 7, but under Clause 12 you seek to take them away Surely that is neither a fair nor an honourable proposal. The position at which we arrived upstairs was this, that the undertakers whose stations had been acquired by the district board should have a certain option. They were to have the option of requiring the district boards to take over their whole undertaking on payment of the capital expended. But this Amendment proposes that from that capital there shall be deducted something for depre-
ciation although the whole basis of the arrangement was that the undertakings should be taken over on the return of the capital. Depreciation was conceded on Clause 7, but it rested on the fact that you got the whole capital back on Clause 12. [MR. T. THOMSON indicated dissent.]
My hon. Friend shakes his head, but that does not alter the fact. I say that to accept this Amendment would be extraordinarily unfair, I have no doubt the Government will oppose it and in doing so will have the support of every fair minded person in the House.

Mr. SHORTT: I am sure the House will recollect that when we were discussing Clause 7, the very basis on which I justified patting the cost less depreciation was that we were not taking over the whole undertaking but were leaving the company with a right to receive the same amount of electricity as they had generated themselves and therefore in a condition if the obligation were carried out to make the same profits as they would have done had they been left alone. But this Clause is to meet the cases where they cannot do that, and to give such companies the right of insisting on being taken over by the district board—to in fact be bought out. Very different considerations arise when you are taking only a portion of an undertaking and making arrangements which, in your view, prevent any loss arising by taking that portion. Then you can pay the original cost less depreciation. But when you come to buy people out you are buying out people who were in a position, if left alone, to recoup their capital out of future trade, and you must therefore treat them as people who would have had an opportunity of getting back the capital they had invested in the concern. Therefore it is that we felt—I think rightly, and I hope the House will agree with me rightly—that if we came to be in the position of taking over an undertaking which had a statutory right to exit for forty-two years, and then to be bought out on certain terms, the least we could do would be to put them in the position of getting back again the capital they had invested in it. We have tried to do that. We think it fair and equitable. The House will recollect that it was upon that basis that I said over and over again, when we were discussing Clause 7, that the provisions for taking over the whole of an undertaking were in a separate Clause and
were on a totally different basis. I therefore hope the House will support us in opposing this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (4), leave out the words "as purchase money" ["sum paid or payable as purchase money"]—[Mr. Shortt.]

CLAUSE 13.—(Special Provisions as to Power Companies.)

(1) The Electricity Commissioners may on the application of a district electricity board by Order exclude from the area of supply of any power company any part of that area which at the time of the application is not being sup plied by the company, and which it appears to the Electricity Commissioners could be better served by the district electricity board, and in consideration therefor may, if they think fit, confer on the power company power to supply electricity for all purposes, in other parts of their area of supply which do not at the time form part of the area of supply of any authorised distributors:

Provided that unless the power company agree to the making of the Order the Order shall be a. special Order.

(2) Where a generating station of a power company is, by virtue of thin Act, vested in a district electricity board the date fixed for the vesting thereof shall not be earlier than one year after the Order constituting the board comes into operation, and if within that year the power company so require the district electricity board shall purchase the whole of the undertaking of the power company upon the terms of paying to the power company the fair market value of the undertaking as a going concern at the date of the constitution of the district electricity board, that value to be determined in default of agreement by arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Act, 1889, and no part of the under taking of the power company shall vest in the board until the completion of the purchase.

For the purposes of this Sub-section the undertaking of a power company shall be deemed to include the undertaking of any subsidiary company which is under the control of the power company, whether by reason of the majority of the voting power being vested in the power company or their nominees or otherwise, as is operated in connection with the undertaking of the power company.

If the area of supply of the power company (including the area of supply of any such subsidiary company) is situate partly in one electricity district and partly in another, each district electricity board shall purchase the part of the undertaking within its district at the same time, and if the price is referred for determination by arbitration shall be determined at the same arbitration, and the amount to be paid to the company shall be apportioned between the district electricity boards in such manner as the Electricity Commissioners may think just.

Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "company" ["is not being supplied by the company"], to insert the words "and in which the company declines to give a supply."
An Amendment in very much the same terms was discussed in Committee upstairs. Since then I have carefully considered whether the omission of these words would really be an injustice to the company. The more I have thought of the matter the more I have come to the conclusion that these words should be in-sorted. I submit that these words should be inserted in order to give reasonable protection. The simple effect of the Clause as it stands without the Amendment is that a supply will be given in the area of an authorised undertaker where a supply is not at the present moment given by an authorised undertaker, but where the authorised undertaker is quite willing to give a supply if called upon by any consumer so to do. The simple statement I have given is self-explanatory of the Amendment.

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to second the Amendment. It seems to be a reasonable Amendment, because I understand the purport of it is that where a company is not giving a supply in certain districts certain things follow, and that by the Amendment the company must first decline to give the supply.

Mr. SHORTT: This was a matter which was thrashed out in Committee upstairs. It is really quite well met by the proviso to the Sub-section which says
Provided that unless the power company agree to the making of the Order the Order shall be a special Order.
A special Order requires certain procedure which involves it coming before this House. It is really a better procedure for the protection of the companies than merely asking them if they will agree. Certainly it would defeat, or might easily defeat, the operation of the Bill if a company, by merely saying, "We are willing" were able to defeat the object of Clause 13. You might have a company which said, "We are willing," and then wasting considerable time trying to supply at a higher price than the district electricity board or the joint authority might have done. What we suggest is a perfectly fair way of meeting what is a perfectly fair object, namely, that where a company do not agree, then the Order will have to be a special Order which the company can fight. It would be going too far to say that the company, by saying, "We will do it," could impose great delay, before the district electricity board could come and prove their case to some-
body. We should have to put in provisions for cases where, although the company had consented to do it, they were not able to do it. If these words are inserted you must, in order to meet them, insert other words providing that if the company, having agreed to do it, does fail in so doing it, then the district board should be able to come in. It is much better to rest upon a proviso that the district board can come into a district which is not being supplied by making an Order for the supply, and, if the company in the area do not agree and say, "We should like to do this ourselves," then it is to be a special Order. The matter then has to be discussed. You get just as much protection for your company and you avoid any probability of delay. If we insert the words" and in which the company declines to give a supply," that means that where they have not declined but say, "We are willing to do it," you must provide machinery to enable the district board to do it if the company say they are perfectly willing but do not do it. By making it a special Order we provide perfect protection for the company.

Mr. BALFOUR: If you do not insert these words this Clause wil be contrary to the whole intention of Clause 11, Subsection (1, b).

Mr. SHORTT: I do not follow that.

Mr. BALFOUR: If the right hon. Gentleman refers to Clause 11, Sub-section (1, b), he will find there that the point is fully covered, and that without these words being inserted in this Clause there will be a contradiction in the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "unless the power company agree to the making of the Order the Order shall be a," and insert instead thereof the words
if the power company, or any county council, local authority, or authorised undertakers which appear to the Electricity Commissioners to be interested, object to the proposed Order, effect shall not be given to the proposals except by."—[Mr. Shortt.]

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Marriott,

Major BARNES: On a point of Order. I have an Amendment in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "purchase" and insert instead thereof the word "acquire," and a further Amendment on the next line.

Mr. SPEAKER: Are not those Amendments covered by the decision already arrived at? I understood that these Amendments were consequential upon the hon. Member's first Amendment which was taken to-day.

Major BARNES: The first was an Amendment to apply the principle of the Land Acquisition Act to the standard price. This is an Amendment to apply to a provision which is not covered by the standard price, and therefore not consequential on the Amendment I moved before.

Mr. SPEAKER: I should think probably the hon. and gallant Gentleman will use exactly the same arguments.

Major BARNES: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the word "purchase" ["the district electricity board shall purchase"], and insert instead thereof the word "acquire."
The Clause provides for the purchase of the remaining part of an undertaking if the undertakers desire it to be purchased. It provides that where the generating station and main transmission lines of a power company have been acquired, the power company may call upon the Board to take over their undertaking. In other words it is the application by the power company of compulsory powers to the board and the power company applying compulsory powers of purchase to the board get market value as a going concern. I am asking that the market value shall be determined under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Compensation Act, otherwise the undertaking must get both an addition for compulsory purchase, which would seem to be a very unfair thing in view of the fact that they are applying the compulsion, and also may get payment for special adaptability and suitability. It seems to me it would be very unfair if owners of this class of property should be able to obtain a market value which includes elements excluded from any payment made for any other class of property which could be acquired under compulsory power. It appears to me that the power companies are the favourite children in this Bill, and they get terms of purchase which the owners of no other class of property in the country can get. I should like to hear some reasons which have induced the Government, through the Home Secretary, to agree to give the power companies these favoured terms of purchase, which would
permit them to get an allowance for compulsory powers and also to get value for special adaptability and suitability.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to second the, Amendment.
There are in this Bill anomalies, inasmuch as you have at least three standards of fair value for taking over various concerns. The differentiation seems to be based on to whom these particular undertakings belong. If they belong to a local authority you come down to the lowest scale. Power companies under the 1888 Act get somewhat better treatment, and finally we come to this Clause 13, which gives better terms still to power companies which are not governed by any particular Act but have a freehold in their undertaking. We spent considerable time in the early part of the Session in passing the Land Acquisition Act, to provide more fair and reasonable terms of purchase of freeholds in land than the existing power's. Very good cause should be shown why this particular class of freeholder power companies should have more advantageous terms than the landlords, with whom we dealt earlier on. The Land Acquisition Bill is the latest pronouncement of Parliament as to what are fair terms for the compulsory acquisition of property. It would only be in keeping with what the House has already decided that the same basis which is given for the landlord should apply equally to power companies.

Mr. SHORTT: The proposal in this Subsection is not at all on the same footing as the acquisition by public authorities which is armed at in the Land Acquisition Bill. There you are buying a pact of a man's property for the purpose of some public work. Here you are buying an industry which is on the lines of nationalisation. You are doing something which would come within the scope of the nationalisation of electricity. You take a power company which has a statutory right to existence and has its rights for all time. If it were purchased in the open market it could only be purchased as a going concern. That is the only way you can treat it. Buying the whole concern as a going concern is a very different thing from purchasing a man's field, or something of that sort, for the purpose of some public work. If you take this upon the basis of reinstatement I am not at all sure that the power companies would not be better off under the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act than they are under this. You are dealing with the case where the State is taking over the whole of a man's concern as a going concern for the purpose of carrying it on for the State. That is what the object of it is. It is that the State shall say, "At your request we will take over the whole of your concern, buy you out of it and run it ourselves for the sake of such profit as we can make ourselves." That is a very different thing from saying, "Here we have to carry out a drainage scheme or build a new hospital, and we will take one of your fields, a portion of your property, and leave you to carry on your business with the rest." That is equivalent to the generating station being taken over. I gave very fully the reasons why the Land Acquisition Act did not apply to that. They were different arrangements altogether. I thought, and I still think, they were more equitable to the State. This is not a question of that kind. It is a question of buying them out entirely, and therefore I hope the House will come to the conclusion that the fair market value as a going concern is really the proper price to be paid to people who are entitled to that price and who are interfered with for the purposes of this Bill. If they can carry on their business successfully without the generating station they can do so, and if they cannot or if they think they cannot, and they therefore demand that the State shall take it, the State can carry it on just as well as they could themselves and will make the profit which they would have made. The State will not be the loser. No injustice will be done and, therefore, I ask the House to leave this Clause as it is and not accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "at" ["concern at the"], and to insert thereof the words; "immediately before."
This is merely a, drafting Amendment.

Captain BOWYER: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after "1889" ["Arbitration Act, 1889"], to insert the words
together with, if the arbitrator thinks fit, such sum as the arbitrator determines to be the costs properly incurred by the company in or as incidental to the arbitration and the transfer of the undertaking.

Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "if the arbitrator thinks fit." The Amendment would hon. read: "Together with such sum as the arbitrator determines to the costs properly incurred, etc." That seems to be complete without the words "if the arbitrator thinks fit."

Mr. SUGDEN: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Mr. SHORTT: I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment. It is clearly fair to the tribunal, no matter whether it is the High Court or an arbitrator or whatever it may be, to have a discretion in cases where they think it necessary to fine one of the parties. It is one of the greatest safeguards we have for ensuring reasonableness in the conduct of any kind of litigation that if a person is unreasonable there should be some power to deprive him of costs in consequence. You may have costs which are proper and reasonable, and you may have costs which are incurred unreasonably, and you must give the arbitrator and the tribunal the power to say, "In this case this offer ought to have been accepted, or the suggestion ought to have been adopted. All these costs, have been thrown away, and the party who has been guilty of that by not adopting the suggestion or accepting the offer shall be deprived of the costs." This is only giving a discretion which I think every tribunal ought to have.

Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.

Words proposed there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to insert the words
and in arming at such value neither tin; fact of the passing of this Act, not any circumstances arising therefrom, shall be taken into account.
I hope the Government will be able to accept this Amendment, as they accepted my drafting Amendment. It really follows the lines of the last Amendment which has been accepted. It is obvious that depreciation in Stock Exchange values, or any other values, which may be due to the introduction of this Act ought not to be allowed to influence the award. That is the sole point.

Mr. SHORTT: This Amendment, if accepted, would give to the companies a value which at present they do not possess. It is perfectly true that they have or may have an existing monopoly in an area, but it is not an absolute monopoly. It is governed by the words of Section I of the Act of 1888, part of my hon. Friend's Parliamentary bargain:
The grant of authority to any undertaking to supply electricity within any area, whether granted by licence or by means of a Provisional Order, shall not in any way hinder or restrict the granting of a licence or Provisional Order to a local authority, or to any other company or person within the same area.
Those who invested money on the strength of the 1888 Act knew perfectly well that they were subject at any time to competitors in their area if Parliament thought fit. Parliament has thought fit, or will have thought fit when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. Therefore, it would be manifestly giving to these companies a value which they do not possess if you were to say, "In spite of the fact that you ought to have anticipated that this might happen; in spite of the fact that you ought to have anticipated that either a public Bill of this nature or a private Bill of the same description might come into force in regard to your area, we will give you the value of your undertakings as if that were impossible."That would be very unfair, and I hope the House will not accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. WADDINGTON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "undertaking" ["include the undertaking"], to insert the words "as regards the generating station and main transmission lines."
This is one of the new Sub-sections introduced in Committee, and it seems to be in contradiction to Sub-section (4) of Clause 12. The purpose is to give to a power company, where it is the owner of a subsidiary company, the right of being bought out on terms of arbitration. I is quite possible that the power company might purchase a distributing company and, if so, it would have advantage over any other distributing company which is not owned by a power company. I move the Amendment in order that the position may be made clear as to whether there is a distinction in the right of purchase where a distributing company is owned by n power company, and whether that distri-
buting company has greater rights than a distributing company which is not owned by a power company.

Mr. SUGDEN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. SHORTT: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. If a power company purchases a subsidiary company, which is itself a producing company, and, therefore, in the same category as a purchasable company, the subsidiary company would be purchased not on the basis of being a power company which has an existence for all time, but it would be purchased as a going concern on the basis of being a purchasable company. The mere fact that a power company buys a subsidiary company does not do away with the right of the local authority to purchase. Neither would it do away with the difference in value between a purchasable company and a power company. The subsidiary company is a value in itself and it will not become a power company merely because it is subsidiary. It remains what it was a purchasable company, valued as a purchasable company exactly as any other purchasable company. Therefore my hon. Friend's fears are unjustified.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: After the word "nominees" insert the words "or shareholders."

Leave out the word "as" ["as is operated"] and insert instead thereof the word "and"—[Mr. Shortt.]

Mr. MARRIOTT: I beg to move, at the end, to insert the; words
In the event of a generating station of a power company being vested in a joint electricity authority, the provisions of this Subsection shall apply as if such joint, electricity authority were a district electricity board.
This is the first of two Amendments which stand in my name at this point on the Paper. The first applies to a joint authority the obligations of a, district electricity board. Under the Clause the obligations of a district board are clearly defined, so it is obviously desirable that the same principle should be applied to a joint electricity authority because as everybody admits there are circumstances in which a joint authority may be in practically the same position as a district electricity board. I think that the omission of these words must be due to a defect in the original drafting of the Bill.

Captain BOWYER: I beg to second the Amendment.
As I said earlier in the debate, a joint electricity authority is clothed with all the powers of an electricity board. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment.

Mr. SHORTT: If my hon. Friends look at Clause 5, Sub-clause (6), they will see that there is provision for applying in relation to the joint electrical authority any of the provisions of this Act relating to district electricity boards, and including the provisions as to borrowing, lending, and giving financial assistance by and to the said boards. Those words are quite sufficient.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I agree. I beg to ask leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I beg to move, at the end, to insert the words
All costs and expenses properly incurred by the power company in and incidental to the arbitration, and to the transfer of their undertaking to the district electricity board, shall be paid by the Board.
This is in accordance with the ordinary practice in reference to payment of costs when purchase is made under compulsory powers.

Captain BOWYER: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. SHORTT: We have already dealt with this question of the cost of arbitration and the House has decided that they are to be in the discretion of the arbitrator.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 14.—(Power to Confer Powers on Boards when Authorised Undertakers Unable or Unwilling to Give facilities.)

The Electricity Commissioners shall have power on the application of any district electricity board, after hearing the parties interested, by Order to require any authorised undertakers to give such reasonable facilities for the supply of electricity within their area of supply as may be specified in the Order, including the provision Of new works, and if any authorised undertakers are unable or unwilling to comply with any such Order, the Board of Trade, on the representation of the Electricity Commissioners, shall have power notwithstanding anything in this Act either—

(a) to order that the undertaking of the authorised undertakers, or any part thereof, shall be transferred to the district electricity board upon the terms prescribed by Section two of the Electric Lighting Act, 1888; or
1582
(b) to confer on the district electricity board power to supply electricity within the area of supply of such authorised undertakers, or any part thereof.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I beg to move, to leave out paragraph (b).
This Clause empowers the Commissioners to require authorised undertakers to give facilities for the supply of electricity, including the provision of new works, and if the undertakers are unable or unwilling to comply with the Order then they may be required forthwith to sell their undertakings to the district board, or the district board may be given powers to supply within the area of the undertakers. The point of my Amendments, briefly, is this: If the undertakers do not see their way to the expenditure, they may forfeit the remainder of their Parliamentary tenure, or they may be exposed to the competition of the wholesale suppliers. There is no limit to the location, or the character or the magnitude of the new works which the undertakers may be called upon to provide. It is obvious, therefore, that it would be possible for the Electricity Commissioners, at the instance of the district board, to call upon the undertakers to tarry out works outside their area of supply, for which they have at present, and under the Bill, no legal powers—works which in their discretion, they think likely to be unremunerative or for which they are unable to find the capital. If they fail to comply with the Order to carry out these works, then they are to be penalised by the expropriation of the remainder of their tenure without any compensation; or, as an alternative, they may be exposed to the competition of the wholesale suppliers—that is to say, the district board. What would be the result? That competition might result in the destruction of the whole business of the undertakers, and I therefore, submit that it is necessary, in order to protect them against such an obvious injustice, to leave out paragraph (b).

Mr. SHORTT: The object of this Bill, as has been stated over and over again, is to get a cheap and efficient supply of electricity. You have an undertaking in an area, and that undertaking knows perfectly well that at any time Parliament may authorise other undertakers to go in as competitors. The Electricity Commissioners, on the application of the board— it is not under the board itself—may inquire as to whether in a certain area certain work is necessary. They come to the
conclusion that for the purposes of the public it is necessary. They may give the undertakers the opportunity of doing it, and if they cannot do it, or will not do it, are the public to suffer or are the Electricity Commissioners to carry out the powers with which they have been entrusted by Parliament, and which will enable the public to receive a supply of electricity I Therefore, I hope the House will reject the Amendment.

Sir F. HALL: One would judge from the speech of the Home Secretary that the undertakers were simply there as an ornament, and not to carry out matters of business. The right hon. Gentleman surely knows that the Amendment is most reasonable. You are making two penalties by the provision now, and putting two provisos on these people. You may ask them to carry out obligations which they cannot reasonably do, and then you are to be in a position to turn round and say, "We are going to provide competition."

Major GREAME: Can the undertaker who is superseded or who is having competition rely on Clause 12, and say, "Under the circumstances which have arisen, I call on the district board to take me over"? Is that right to continue whilst this Clause operates? I suggest that as a corollary to Clause 12 the undertaker ought to be able to call on the district board to take over the undertaking.

Sir F. BANBURY: I think we ought to have an answer from the Home Secretary on this point. During the whole of the discussions to-day the Government have said, "After all, there is no unfairness in the Bill, because if the undertakers do not like the terms of it there is Clause 12, which enables them to require the Government to take over their whole undertaking." I am glad my hon. and learned Friend opposite is here, because he told me a little while ago that I was not competent to decide upon the inner meaning of Clauses in an Act, but so far as I am competent, I would say this, that a later Clause overrides a former Clause. If this was not so, the Home Secretary would have told my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Greame) that Clause 12 was not overridden by Clause 14. If Clause 14 does override Clause 12, then I think the Amendment should be accepted, but if the Amendment is not accepted there should be an appeal from the Electricity Commis-
sioners. After all, who are the Electricity Commissioners that they should be entrusted with the property of obedient subjects of the realm? I presume they are very excellent people, but they remind me rather of the two gentlemen—I have forgotten their names—who under Charles I. went about the country levying taxes. They were very unpopular people, and my hon. and gallant Friend reminds me that they were fined by the Court of King's Bench and insulted by the rabble. We do not want that to fall to the lot of the Electricity Commissioners, but I venture to say that this country is not going to stand having gentlemen, however estimable they are, stuffed into the position of Commissioners who are to go about and tell people what they are to do with their property. If that is so, I think history may very likely repeat itself, and what happened to those gentlemen will happen again. Therefore I think we must have an undertaking from the Government that Clause 14 does not override Clause 12, or have the Amendment of my hon. Friend inserted in the Bill.

Mr. SHORTT: Clause 14 has no relation whatever to Clause 12. Clause 12 deals with the case where generating stations are compulsorily taken from the undertakings and vested in the district board or authority, and, therefore, they have certain rights given to them enabling them to put themselves into a better financial position. Clause 14 does not deal with compulsory taking in the least; it has no connection with Clause 12.

Sir F. BANBURY: But does the defaulter have the benefit of Clause 12?

Mr. SHORTT: Of course not; they have no relation to each other. Why should the defaulter have the benefit of a Clause which is given to a man whose property is compulsorily taken? The one is a defaulter; the other is a man who is not a defaulter in any sense of the word, but who happens to be the subject of the action of an Act of Parliament. Therefore I ask the House to accept this Clause as it stands. It provides for nothing unreasonable at all. It provides for that which, under the Act of 1888, the undertakers are bound to carry out, or somebody else is allowed to come in and do it for them. Therefore there is no necessity to suggest that Clause 12 applies or to put in words to make it.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 15.—(Subsidiary Powers of District Electricity Boards.)

(1) The Board of Trade, on the representation of the Electricity Commissioners, may by Order authorise any district electricity board or any authorised undertakers to abstract water from any river, stream, canal, inland navigation or other source, and to do all such acts as may be necessary for the purpose of enabling the district electricity board or authorised undertakers to utilise and return the water so abstracted, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the Order, but the board shall not in any case make such an Order until, notice of their intention to make the Order has been given by advertisement or otherwise as the board may direct and an opportunity has been given to any person who appears to the board to be affected of stating any objections he may have thereto, and such Order may provide for the recovery of penalties for infringement of the Order:

Providad that—

(a) where the source from which the water is to be abstracted is a canal, inland navigation, dock, or harbour regulated by Act of Parliament, or where any existing rights of riparian owners will be affected by the abstraction of the water, the Order authorising the abstraction shall be a special Order, and shall provide that the water not consumed shall be returned at a level not lower than that at which it was abstracted; and
(b) the Order shall require that all water not consumed (and in no case less than ninety-five per cent, of the water abstracted) shall be returned in a condition not leas pure than when it was abstracted and at a temperature not higher than such as may be specified in the Order (which temperature shall be fixed at such a degree as appears to the board necessary to avoid injury to public health or to fisheries, if any), or in the case of a canal or inland navigation to the works, thereof, or to vessels using the same, or to the trade or business carried on by any person using the same for the purposes of or in connection with his trade or business.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (1, a), after the word "shall" ["not consumed shall be returned"], insert the words "subject to any agreement to the contrary."—[Mr. Shortt.]

Sir F. HALL: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after paragraph (b), to insert
(c) no Order shall be made authorising the abstraction of water from any dock regulated by Act of Parliament or from the Manchester Ship Canal except with the consent of the owners thereof and subject to such terms and conditions as may be agreed.
I may say that we have discussed this matter with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, and I think he will agree with me that a Clause was included which would give the
necessary protection to the docks. He and his advisers recognised the difficulties that might accrue if, for instance, the Commissioners had power to take out wherever they wanted the water, and return it practically at any temperature without making arrangements with the various authorities. We recognised, and we wanted to get my hon. Friend to acknowledge, that the same facilities should be granted with regard to the Manchester Ship Canal, but I will be perfectly honest and say that, although my hon. Friend was prepared to give us the Clause to which I have referred if, for instance, the words "or from the Manchester Ship Canal" were excluded, he readily recognised difficulties might accrue. But I would like my hon. Friend to recognise the fact that on that canal, which extends for thirty-six and a half miles, ships of 10,000, 12,000, and 15,000 tons are continually passing up and down. If water is to be taken out at certain places and returned at others, there are certain currents, and the rush of water, through being returned, will cause vessels to sheer away and block the canal. You will have all sorts of difficulties.
Another point. That is in regard to the heat of the water. Hon. Members may think that only a very small quantity of water is required. That is not so. There are big docks, and in these the water might be utilised two or three times in the twenty-four hours. It is returned in many cases at a very high temperature. What I am saying particularly applies to November, December, and January, and particularly along the banks of the canal where the riparian owners are who have special privileges. There are heavy fogs. You add to the difficulties here by returning water at a very high temperature because of the humidity. You add to the local fogs, with the result that you may have very many accidents to the shipping in those districts. The Manchester Corporation have gone very carefully into this matter. They are desirous of assisting the authorities so far as they possibly can. It will be remembered that we had a discussion on the Transport Bill. The Government recognised this aspect of the case by inserting a special provision, I think in Clause 4, granting the same facilities, and putting the Manchester Ship Canal on exactly the same footing and conditions, as the docks and harbours. They thereby recognised that, at all events, the canal should be accepted upon the same terms as the docks and harbours. At this late
hour I do not desire to elaborate, but my right hon. Friend has had a very important deputation, which has discussed, these matters with him. I think that he will agree that they made it perfectly clear, at all events as regards the docks, that they ought to be treated in the way I have suggested, and that you should not take water from them, but leave them their statutory powers, and in the hands of the various boards that have been appointed. We do not think that this House could say that the Electricity Commissioners should override the decisions which would be arrived at by these authorities. To these capable bodies, to the Manchester Ship Canal authority, for instance, from the port alone there are eleven out of the twenty-one who have been appointed directors. Therefore, it will be realised that the people who have jurisdiction under the Statutes are more capable of judging what is necessary than any Electricity Commissioners.

Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: I beg to second this Amendment, which is one of very considerable importance. Dock authorities and the Manchester Ship Canal, which is in the same category, have very great national responsibility in regard to the navigation of the Mercantile Marine of this and other countries. It is vitally important that everything connected with the navigation of shipping that can be done should be done in the docks and the Manchester Ship Canal. In the Transport Act this House decided that although under Section 3 orders may be given by the Minister of Transport which had to be obeyed by the directors and other persons concerned with the management, and officers and servants of any undertaking of which possession was taken, that provision should not apply either to docks, except railway docks, or to the Manchester Ship Canal. The reason of that decision was that it was vitally necessary that complete discretion should be left to the authorities responsible for the management of the docks or ship canal upon which the safety and general good management of shipping within the docks and canal depended. Since the Government have taken the view that the Minister of Transport should be substituted for the President of the Board of Trade under this Act, this Clause 15 must be considered as if in the first line the Minister of Transport took the place of the Board of Trade. The Clause as
drawn provides that the Minister of Transport shall have the powers which were originally intended to be conferred on the President of the Board of Trade which are the powers of making these orders for the use of the water and docks, or the Manchester Ship Canal for electricity purposes. I understand that in the case of a very large generating station a larger quantity of water might be needed during the twenty-four hours, and that a constant flow and the return water might amount to a larger volume, and it might be of a considerable temperature. I am advised by those responsible for the Liverpool docks and the Manchester Ship Canal that the return of a larger volume of water in itself apart from its temperature is a matter of considerable danger. I have had considerable experience of collisions in docks and on the Manchester Ship Canal I know that even a small flow of water may cause a ship to sheer and strike a bank where there is not much water under the keel. The point is that it is vitally necessary that the authority responsible for the management of the canal or the docks should have the whole responsibility and that that responsibility should not be taken away from it. That was put forward here when the Transport Bill was under discussion, so that, you cannot expect a number of very busy and able men to give their time, as they do to-day, to the administration of great concerns like the Port of London Authority, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, or the Manchester Ship Canal, and take decisions which they regard as their right, and which probably are right, and have those decisions overruled by any Government Department. That is the point. The House took the view that that was right, and in Section 4 of the Transport Act it is provided that no Order shall be made under Section 3 of that Act affecting docks regulated by Act of Parliament or the Manchester Ship Canal without the consent of the dock authority or of the Manchester Ship Canal authority. That precedent, from the point of view of common sense, is binding for practical purposes in this House, and the same principle ought to be applied here. I understand that the Government concede the principle by being willing to accept the Amendment so far as docks are concerned. That concession of principle carries us the whole way. There is no distinction at all in principle between the
docks at Liverpool on each side of the Mersey and the Manchester Ship Canal and the docks at Manchester. They are all in the same position. The public position is that you must leave the discretion in the hands of the authority responsible to the public for the wise management of the concern. I submit very strongly to the Home Secretary that in this case he ought to concede that the Manchester Ship Canal should be put on the same footing as the Liverpool docks. I venture to hope that he will take a reasonable view of the matter.
On that assumption the Manchester Ship Canal Company in 1909 were asked by the Manchester Corporation to allow them to have at Barton a large supply of water for the purposes of a big fire station which was contemplated. The Ship Canal Company were asked to do it in circumstances in which they thought danger would be caused to the traffic on the canal. They therefore refused. Last year, the conditions being somewhat different, the Canal Company were satisfied, and entered into the agreement. That shows that the directors of the Canal Company recognise public needs and are anxious and willing to meet them. There was another case. At Runcorn a large power station was in contemplation of, I think, 25,000 kilowatt power. The Canal Company have gone carefully into the matter, and have come to the conclusion that an agreement can safely be made, and they have made it. These two instances show that it is not only right in principle not to submit the Manchester Ship Company to any Order made under this Bill, but that it is right to rely upon their common sense and their readiness to make reasonable agreements where they are required.

Mr. SHORTT: My hon. and learned Friend is quite mistaken in saying that I make any admission of the principle at all. It is perfectly true that the words "or from the Manchester Ship Canal" were eliminated from this Amendment as accepted, but I should not have accepted it from any point of view of principle at all. I accepted it simply for the reason that it did not much matter with regard to docks, but when you come to the canals it is altogether different. The Manchester Ship Canal is like any other canal. My hon, and learned Friend himself, by his account of what has happened during the last few years, has shown the necessity
of having the canal as a means of getting water power if necessary. Why should the Manchester Ship Canal be different from any other canal? They are protected by the provision that "in the case of a canal the Order authorising the abstraction shall be a special Order." We have under this provision for the protection of canals, and the Manchester Ship Canal is on exactly the same footing as any other canal.

Mr. L. SCOTT: There is no canal in this country which carries ships of approximately the same tonnage.

Mr. SHORTT: It is on exactly the same footing as any other canal, and I ask the House to say it shall be under the same conditions as any other canal. It is amply protected; it is protected by the procedure of a special Order. My hon. and learned Friend has shown that the waters of the Manchester Ship Canal have been required, and may probably be again required. They can be given in certain circumstances, but they will not be used when it would be detrimental to navigation, nor will they be refused when it is not. They will be on exactly the same footing as any other canal, and, therefore, I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Sir F. BANBURY: I did not understand the Homo Secretary when he said that the Manchester Ship Canal was exactly like any other canal. I came up from Wiltshire this morning, and, looking out of the railway carriage window, I saw a, canal on which there was a barge being drawn by a horse, and further on I saw another barge drawn by another horse ill the same direction, I understood the Manchester Ship Canal allowed ships of many thousand tons burden to proceed under their own steam up to the port of Manchester, and how, then, can that compare with the canal I happened to see this morning, or with another canal I also saw this morning, covered with green slime? Therefore I think that that argument must fall to the ground, and that the Home Secretary on further consideration will agree that I am right in that particular case. Now we come to the case whether or not water should be taken from the Manchester Ship Canal. I am not quite sure whether I am right in my figures, but the Manchester Ship Canal was originally estimated to cost about £10,000,000. Like many other
engineering undertakings it cost about double that amount. Indeed, affairs got into such a state that the City of Manchester Corporation had to provide money to finish it. The result, of it has been that many millions more I have been spent. If you are going to take away the water you might as well say that I the whole of the money spent on the canal is to be taken away. The question is, are we to have cheaper electricity and is the Port of Liverpool to revert to its old condition and Manchester merely become a subsidiary market town of Liverpool? This particular Sub-section provides that the water taken shall be returned at a level not lower than that at which it was abstracted. How is that going to be done? When you take the water when it flows at a certain height over the wheel, how can you return it at the same level? I do not
think the Home Secretary has answered the very clear statement of my hon. and gallant Friend.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Adjourned accordingly at Two minutes after Eleven o'clock.